MAGISTERIAL.

Waikato Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8060, 19 November 1906, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

♦ CAMBKIUGE-FBIDAY. (Before H. W. Nortboroft, Esq., S.M.) IUIEACH OF BY-LAWS. Five persona were oharged with allowing animals to stray upon the streets of the Borough without proper guidance. Mr Dixon appeared for the Borough Council, and Mr Edmonds for nearly all , the defendants, who all pleaded guilty. Mr Ednnnds stated he was told the informant's remuneration was to be half 1 the hoes, which he thought was a very wrong proceading. Tae Magistrate agreed with Mr Elinouds, and also said he thought the defendants should all have been warned, as by a previous by-law the inhabitants bad been allowed to run cattle on certain < streets of the town. That being so he , convicted defendants and ordered each to ' pay 3s 6d, the costs of the Council's . solicitor. No court fees were charged. . Mr Northcroft said in future he should not deal so leniently with those who infringed the by-laws, but he deprecated the Counoil paying informant by giving him half the tines inflicted. A FENCING CASE. F. Marcnfc v Harry Kerr, clain £3 10s for Meeting a fence between defendant's property and that of Miss Courtney. Mr C. C. Bueklaud appeared for plantiff and Mr iidinouds tor defendant. Mr Edmonds stated the property on which the tenoe wae erected did not belong to his client. Frank Addy Marcroft, builder, stated that he was emp.oyed by defendant to erect a fence between his property and that of Miss Courtney in Bryce-street, each of them to pay half the cost. Defendant saw the work as it progressed and did not find any fault with it. t lie a=ked witness to send in the bill and , said too many posts had been used, that . witness had done the work without authority, that straining posts had bee a used . which were no: necessary, and that the wire used was American. Mr Kerr led , him (witness) to believe that the property , was his. i Thus. Peter Smith disposed that he was i employed ejecting the fence for Mr Marcrott, anl Mr Kerr oame and examined I it. t Martin McDerinott sail he did not aot . as agent in Cambridge for Mr Harry Kerr, j but he was agent for Mr Kurr's wife. He did nut ask plaintiff for an account that he had not receivoJ. Harry Kerr deposed that he had no pro- > perty in Cambridge, but his wife had. He I was not ageiit tor h»r, the last witness be- , ing her agent. Marcroft approached him I about buying Miss Courtney's property, ) and he (witness) told him that he ) had no property in Cambridge, and j that be had advised his wife to sell what ) she had in the Borough. Witness further t stated that he told plaintiff his wife would ) prefer an iron fence and he sud he would ) write to Miss Courtney and see if she [ would agree Subsequently he understood . Miss ' uurtney would agree to a barb d j wire fence b'ing erected. He called at ; Marcrott's business premises several times > to see bim on his wife's aocouut about the fence, but he cou'd not find him, and the next he knew about the business was that the fence was erected. Mr Maroroft, on I eing recalled, said that ; never on any occasion did Kerr mention that the property belonged to his wife, ; ueither did McDermott. He was sure he , wn autborisel by Kerr to erect the fence, ; and he would swear that he did not know . that the property belonged to Mrs Kerr. ( The Magistrate thought there might have been a misunderstanding about the ; fence bjing iron or wire, but there was not evidence to connect Kerr with the liability for the fence, He must either leave them as he found them, or say that one side or the other h*d oommittedperjury. He non- ' Buited plaintiff. Defendant refused to accept costs for ■ himself. 1 L. D. Nathan sue! Soobie Simpson to recover £VJ los 2d. Mr Edmonds appeared I for plaintiff for whom judgment was given i for the amouut claimed and costs £'i 9i. ■ I -