MAGISTERIAL.

Waikato Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8083, 20 December 1906, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

HAMILTON—WEDNESDAY. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., S.M.) JUVENILE COURT. Before taking the ordinary business Mr Ni rthoroft, in his private room, heard complaintß against a number of children, charged with stealing flowers. The children being penitent, Mr Northcrcft deoided to let the whole matter stand over until February, no convictions being entered in the meantime. IJI'.KACII OK PROHIBITION OBUEtt, Edward Wall wis charged with that being a prohibited person he did procure liquor from ttichard • avis. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Davis was also charged with supplying liquor to a prohibited person. After hearing evidence, the Magistrate commented on the discrepancies between the stories of Davia and Wall, and convicted both defendants, fining each 60s and costs. ABBAULT. William Singer was oharged with that, on November 7th, at Waerangi, he did assault Katie Marshall, a Maori. Sergeant Hanson prosecuted, and Mr Gillies appeared for defendant. Katie Marshall gave evidence of the assault and said that defendant afterwards wished to apologise, but she refused to have any conversation with him, and said he could apologise when the constable came.

Mr Gillies, in cross-examination, suggested that the two were joking and laugh ing together, and that Katie tripped over the bridle.

This witness denied. She t-doiitted that she had said that Singer had been running her down.

Eugene Patrick MoQueeny gave evidence of seeing the affair, wnioh he described as skylarking. He saw Sing catch Mise Marshall by the shoulders, let her go, and when three yards from him she fell. John Macky, a Maori, who also witnessed the assault, gave evidence through the Court interpreter, Mr W. A. Graham.

To Mr Gillies s He knew Katie well. The last time they had talked over the case together was on the night of the assault. They had not since talked about it, that day for instance.

This was the case. Mr Gillies submitted that there was no case to answer.

His Worship said the fact of defendant laying hands on the girl constituted an assault.

Mr Gillies said it did not if done in play. Under the seotion the Benoh could dismiss the information, the asiault being tjo trivial for punishment. His Worship said he would hear defendant.

Defendant said on the evening in queition he was standing at the door of his house and Katie called out to him to help her oatch a horse. He went to do so. They skylarked a little, He did not trip her.

To Sergeant Hanson: He would sweir he did not trip her. He did not know what caused her to fall.

John McSweeney, farm labourer, said informant told him that night that she tripped over her bridle. This was the defence.

Hia Worship said he oould jot believe that if they were only skylarking defendant would have used the epithets he did. tie would allow the case to stand over until the following day. ALLEGED ILLEGAL FISHING.

John Wright and Kiohard Wright were oharged with that on November 3rd, 1906, in the Waikato Eiver, they did use a net for the purpose of taking fish. Kichard Wright pleaded guilty, and John Wright not guilty. Neither was represented by counsel.

Mr MacDiarmid appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Auckland Acclimatisation Sooiety.

William H. Paul, representative of the Sooiety in Hamilton, produced Gazette uotioes defining the district, and prohibiting the use of nets in the streams therein.

Theodore J. Mitchell, fluxmiller, Hamilton, said on the date mentioned he saw two men placing a nee in the river. He saw one take a fi*h out of it. After a while an elderly man came along the road and sat near the fishers. One of the young men left shortly after that, and a little later the police ,came and took possession of the net and the fish. The net was stretched across a baokwater from the river. It was in part of the river. To defendant John Wright: Witness could not say if he shifted uotil the police came. He did not handle the net until the police came, when he assisted to roll it up. He did not touch the fish or have anything to do with it. Constable MoCormaok said that on November 3rd, from information reoeived, he went along the river towards No. 1 bridge and saw defendants. He took potsession of the net (produced) and a fish which he found at a spot indicated by the previous witne3B. He found the fish to be a mullet. John Wright asked witness for the net, and when it wai not given up he said he would hold witness responsible for it.

Richard Wright gave evidence that the other defendant did not assist in any way with the net, and wai not present when it was put in the river by witness. His Worship said there was no evidence against John Wright. He would -consider the case of the other defendant and deal with it later. CIVIL CASKS. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following civil cases: Hugh Kelly v. Mayes and Eadford, olaim 6s, balaica of acoount; Crawford (Mr MacDiarmid) v. McLeish claim £1 la Id, defendant to have the right to have the case reheard if application is made; J. S. Bond v. T. Kenn dy, olaim £5 19s, same v. Kenny claim £2 10a sd; Sjuth Auckland Sawmillers' Association (Mr MacDiarmid) v. Powell, claim £l3 6i. DISPUTED CLAIMS. Tanawhea (Mr Watts) v. P. Davenport (Mr MaoDiarmid) claim £B, value of a plough and damages for wrongful detention of same. Plaintiff said he went to defendant for a loan of £3, giving the plough brought in for repairs as security. If he repaid the money the plough was to be returned. Witness paid baok the money but defendant said the plough was not finished; be said he would complete it. When the plough was finished he offered defendant £2, but he would not take it. Defendant said he had done a lot of work to the plough. He wanted £3 10s, whioh witness would not agree to pay. He got a bill for £3 15s. He had not got the plough back. Ha owed defendant nothing apart from the plough.

To Mr MacDiarmid: The prioe of the repairs was to be £2. In addition to that he lent plaintiff £3, Davenport was not to have the plough for £5 to be sold baok to plaintiff if he brought £5. Plaintiff signed the receipt (produce!) but did not know what it was about.

Franois Mackay, police constable, stationed at Te Aroha, said when in Morrinsville in Soptember last, the previous witness and another native asked him to go with them to defendant's place in reference to a plough. iU went with them. Mr Davenport said they could have the plough when they paid what they owed on it. He said he had bought the plough and had a receipt for it. The nativos understood what he said. They claimed that defendant overcharged them for repairs. Evidence was given by defendant, after which His Worship said it was nonsense to hold that if, after the agreement became void, the defendant put a considerable amount of work into the plough, the natives should have it at the original prioe. Tne native could have the plougl. if he paid the extra amount. Plaintiff would be non-suited with costs, 393. James S. Bond claimed £l lss for rent of a room engaged for a ayolin<? olub, from B Peace. Defendant disputed the olaim. Judgment was given for plaintiff for th> amount claimed. At 5.25 the Court adjourned until 7 p.m. The Ci/Urt resumed at 7. p.m. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. J. Smith was ordered to pay forthwith to Jessie Power on a judgment summons, the sum of ill Is Bd, in default 14 days' | imprisonment. A HORSE CASE, John Knight (Mr MaoDiarmid) v. Walter 1 Chitty (Mr Swarbrick) cltim £22 for alleged misrepresentation and breach of warranty. By permission of the Court the olaim was amended to Xl'i. Plaintiff, a farmer, said he bought the horse at the Ohaupo sale on October I9tb, defendant stating that the horses he ha<i for sale were first-class animals, and had Keen used to discs, ploughing and harrowing. He also said he could guarantee them in a waggon. Defendant led him to believe he had bred and broken the horses. Witness bid for both horsoa but did not get the first one, which sold for £3O. The second horse was knocked down to him for £27. He bought the horses solely on defendant's recommendation before auction The horse was taken straight from theyards to the farms, where it was tried on December Bth, he having no suitable work at the time of purchase. On December Bth the horse was tried in an empty disc, such as a man could have pulled with one hand. He was useless at it. He would not pu'.l himailf or let the other horses puli, 0,9 tUeu wrote to dirts wduat asking

him to take the horse hack as it was a jib, but got no reply. He saw defendant, who said he intended to do nothing. The horae was tried again on the 17th, when the horse had every chance but he would v not pull. He jibbed about six times in 7* five chains. They had to take the horse out and roplaoe it with another to get the ■ ploagh back to where they started from. lie estimated the value of the horse for farm work at .£5. Jle was absolutely the worst horse he had ever struck,

To Mr Swarbrick.He supposed someone bid just below bim at auction. Jffe remarked that the horses were a bit light for discing, but Chitty said they were the very thing. When he saw defendant the lutter did not say that if he had the horse for a couple of days he would make it alright in a Bpring cart, but be did Bay that there was a sale coming off and they could get rid of him and lose nothing on him. He and defendant had always been friendly. He could not say that the horse was sold with a trial in a spring cart. Chitty did not oiler to give him a trial in a spring cart, nor did he ask for it. Chitjfc* stood near the auctioneer and recoi,monded the horse to the public as a good one. William James Badoliffe, who was pr»sent at the sale and afterwards tried the Wee, gave similar evidence, as also did Edwin Goodwin. Joseph Radford, livery stable man, Hamilton, said the horse was offered as a good one and one that had been broken. He knew the horse before the sale, it having been previously owned bjtg Mr Ashby, who broke it in. He had trieoU in a coach, in which he gave a lot of trouble. The horse would be no übo to a farmer. To Mr Swarbrick: He thought Ashby used the horse in a baker's cart. Thomas Mayes also gave evidence. Mr Swarbrick opened the defendant'scase, and called defendant, whs said he bought the horse from Ashby for £4,5. He did not know it was a jib, or be would not have bought it. Witness outlined the conversation at Ohaupo. He did not tell Knight they were first class horses. He entered them as spring o»rt horses. He told Knight hi had never worked the horses himself and also where be harPgot them. He thought the horse oould have been made right. Witness was cross-examined at some length. Herbert Ashby also gave evidence, after which the hearing was adjourned. The Court then rose until 9 a.m. to-day. The further hearing of the case, was today adjourned until the next sitting of the Court. JB The Court was occupied this morning in hearing an affiliation case, whioh is likely to last all day.