MAGISTERIAL.

Waikato Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8049, 5 November 1906, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

RAGLAN—TUESDAY, October 31ST. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., 8.M,) ' CIVIL CASES. ' C. Searanoko v. Thos. Phillips.—Claim X 25 for cattle sold. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was entered against him for the amount claimed, with X 8 10a COBtR. Gilmour Bros., v Kohe.—ln this case, a claim tor X 8 4s 9d for goods supplied, the summons had been served on the wrong man at Te Rapa, where there are two natives bearing the name of Kohe. The Magistrate hllcwed the defendants X2 9a cos is against plaintiffs, provided that on investigation his statements as to his having told the policeman who served the summons that he was the wrong man, ''were found to be true.

Wong Lem v. Moaku Kaweru.—Defendant did not; appear and judgment went against him for tie amount claimed, 10a, and costs.

Wong Lem v. Gordon Kendall.—Claim XI 19s sd, balance of account for goods ,-upplied. Defendant produced receipts which showed that he had paid the money to a third party, who Wong Lam said, was not authorised to receive it on his behalf. The case was adjourned till next Court day to permit of his attendance.

Wong Lem v, Sweetman.—Claim 14s, for goods supplied. The son was summonsed in mistake for the father, who sent word that he had received no acoount for the amount. Defendant was allowed XI 53 2d costs against plaintiff. Homi Kereopa v. Kihi.—Plaintiff olaimed X2 5s for growing flax destroyed by a swmnp fire which, it was alleged, defendant had caused in burning fern at Te Akau, it was shown that a fire destroyed two hundred tons of growing flax, the right to cut which belonged to Mr Rutherford, and chat when remonstrated with for causing the fire, defendant had said be did not care for the flax.—Defendant now argued that the land had not been partitioned, and that his children were interested in it, so that the Court had no right to interfere. Mr Northcroft told him if he did not mend his ways he would be breaking atones instead of burning tern and flax, and that he had no right to destroy even his children's belongings, much less those of other people. Ha was ordered to pay the amount claimed and X 3 9s costs.

David Vercamer v. Erneat A. Foster.— Claim XBB, balance alleged to be due oQ account of a bushfelling contract atPakihi, near ie Mats, Plaintiff said defendant had refused to pay the money, balance of amount due on a coutraot for grubbing and cutting 269 aores at 235, because he said a lot of trees that should have-been cut were left standing and that he was entitled to deduct for patches of shelter bush, left by his instructions. Evidenoe *as adduced by plaintiff to show that defendant told the bushmen to leave the buth in steep places to prevent landslips; that the oontiact was carried out to defendant's satisfaction, as was proved by his making no complaints to the contrary when he gave the plaintiff cheques to pay his men off at the completion of the j >b; that he had said the leaving of shelter patches of bush would unke no difference to the contractor, who would be paid for the whole blook | and that no complaint of any sort was made ai Co the work not being well done till a dispute aroce over the mjasurement, three rnontas later. Defendant urged that there should ba no departure fr m the terms tf tne written contract, whioh specified tho work wtis to be Uone to bis satisfaction ; that he had made complaints that it was not bo d ne; that all tieoa bslow a certain sizo were to be felled, which had not been done; and that he w.s only liable for tho area felled, and not for 19J acres left standing. Tae S.M. said it was not extraordinary thug if defendant did not consider the wort well done, that he had paid oil the contractor's men, promised to piy the balance wheu the work was measured up, and allowed the bushmen'a cairp to be broken up. Uis Worship entered judgment tor p:aiutiff tor XB6 7s and X 3 13a 9d costs.