MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 428, 10 February 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S M.) ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. Three middle-aged men, John Trajnor, William Thorans, and Georgo Williams, apj>carcd in answer to a charge of having, on February'?, assaulted ono Jamos Carter and robbod him of 6s in money in an outhouse near the Cricketers' Arms Hotel, Tory (Street. On tho application of Sub-Inspector Ph.ur, who stated that tho accused had only |ieen arrested the previous night, a remand to February 17 ivas granted, bail being allowed in tho sum of £100 and two sureties of £50. CHARGE OF THEFT OF A BICYCLE A youpg man named Andrew Herbert lleid, aline Robertson, pleaded not guilty to fi charge of having, on or about February 5, nt the Lower Hutt, committed theft of a bicvclo valued at £4, tljo property of Thomas Hull. A remand to February 12 was granted on the application of Sub-Inspector Phair. A MONTH IN PRISON. A well-dressed young woman named Moda Webb pleadecl guilty to a charge of indecency in Glenbervio Terrace. A sentence of one month's imprisonment was imposed.

••: -.; v , :' ;-; ; :,riNSQBRiETy.;-,: ; -;;- ; ;v, ; v:';;v ■'••' An., elderly '■_ woman;.;': named. 1 Catherine Thatcher pleaded: guilty to a charge of habijmal drunkenness; : Sujj-Inspectpr'.Phair'.sug-gested.thaj; defendant'should be sent to spme home where' drink would■ be "put'of fe T e^h '■'. His, Worship remarked that: if such a home were available' it wijuld. be a good thing JEor defendant,'..but tjhero' was none,and she would; be conyiqted and. to two months'' imprisonment.- ; Clara; J3 pannigari, charged with insobriety,; was convicted;and fined ;■ 205., : in default 'seven., days' imprisonment.. ■,•■';■':•'■ ; . J.-;-;-.:-. , '--. ;■•!' .. : .~. : .; .' ; ' v,' - :':'"

One first offender, ■who.failed to appear, ■jras-" convicted :and!'fined 103., land,::'three other, first: offenders were convicted and fined :ss. :' :: -::,'■'■ '■■A'-'i i2 : -Z<ixui-t?: : ''■■■":

:- : ; v .'■■■,; ; - : y w ; ■': v'rf s ' juag'nieiit:''W(is : r : g|vie4'. : 'by.vPr;; , '.'A.'; M'Arthur, thg civil-action Harry .Macintosh.V.Ofr: ■ ■Wjlfbrij) j.- Harrison and i Morrison "(Mr':.;Myers), r , two: cases"arising .but' of 'the ■ eairie:, , set • of" cjreumstances,■ ■•". cases ./jvere vtaken .together'. , . • .In -"the; first ■ action plaintiff sued defendants for the te-; povery of £39 balance' afleged to : bp-du'6for archjtectpral -■ work.; done. ~ Iri:. th'e : 'sreoiid. pc-'-1 tion plaintiff ibiight to recover £30 ■ 125.. Sd.' i balance' alleged to ■■be duo tp! plaintiff for : ' board aMvartiples; (Supplied;; '.. y,ri;A•!<■/■: ■ ■-•'His .Worship .'considered, that ■ these. .were two most unsatisfaefpry. actions. , ."The.parties had been, friends" aiia-. ; entered'. into .business, matters without, haying :'any d.e&njte :agr.eo-'. men);,' Fith/ result! I .Thpy.-feU .PV»>;-* n d'.nb^;'/tH'ey:',fiad"'jdistjn^Jy';:eejiarafe o .ff:-the; one', hand'- th'ere.'. wes'^e'iyidence "of: :the : .plauitiff.and:his,.w)fe, arid, oil the .other the/.eyidence" of i.the. partners.' -'In reference to; the.architect's fees, .the.Court believed ; plaintiff didi good -:wflrk/'for defendants,- and |hat they..were.;satisfied.; with : tho; but at the.same time his .Worship.considered that ft;was tacitly.,understood; that thp.'advances. iPjade- by. : 'aerpndarite:itq ; .;pkiritiff'i ; cpßstitute4' W e . Te . mu ner!itidn^^^he'was: '.to-jreceive; ■■■Wh'ei was right or wrong':inftbis;ihis Wo'rshjp opnsi.dered 'plaintiff. w»s'Bopped: from writtpn.by. Jlinirpn Gctpber 3.~- In'thV'actio'n }??. Mi, fi Architect,: judgment f?j?>l39W.s- ■;>As: to ;i t)je;.aqtipn'for^ and lodging,.:.the .evidence*sgain.differed.■ The r Courti considered plaintiff.'was entitled' to' at least..los;, per week.fpr.,2l week's, ;and there' was also.a sum of £2~l7s,9d;ftr goods p ica, for which judgment must'bp given ior P'amtip,. making judgment',foT:;plaintiff .'for! .£13,76, 9d.. '■■ N,b ; cost s .sfluld;be/allow'ed' : hv 'pither case.; \ ' .:■:" iv-..;;-:>.-vvv ; .'-"-A ■/:-.■'■■"•'

•CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgmenf; for plaintiff by default of deicndant was entoied m the following civil cases \ — B-itos ar.d Lees v. Louis J. Forrest, £2 10s. 8d costs'lßs., P. H. Miller and Co. v T. W Forster, £17 15s. 5d., costs £1 15s. M.; Bates and Lees v. RicWd Driscoll £5 Oβ. 9d.. costs £1 3s. 6d.; Le/in and Co., Lfd., v. the Okanto Fhxmill Co., £53 0s lid., costs £3 17s. 6d.; Henry Fieldei ana Ui, y. Itobt. Bannister, Bs. 3d., costs 125.; Ihomwn and Bipwn v. Hepry Halse, £5 posts £1 os. 6d.; Dominion Mercantile Agency, assignee, and Kirkcaldie ana . Stains Ltd, assignor, v. Dein Oxford Shute, £15 (ss. lid posts £1 10s. 6d • Maanns, Sanderson and Co. v. Lanell Wilson Rollinshaw, £3 Ss. (id., costs ]0s.;; H. Morris apd Col v. BicharJs and Co., £7 lis. Id., costs 18s. fid.; H.M. the Kinp y. Murray ißros, 10s. Id , costs 55.; Dresden Piano Co. v Wm Holmes ffnkejin, £6 Ss. 10d., sosts £1 fls" 6d., Wardoll Bros, and Co. y. Mary 15 Smith, £1 11s. lid., costs 5s ; Wh.'tcombe and Tombs, Ltd,, v. J. H. Smith, £6, costs £1 Bs. 6d.; Diamond Confectionery Co v Emily Harkness, £7 2s. 7d , costs £1 Ss. 6d.; Alice Maud Carroll v. Arthur G. Wilkinson, £3 4s. 6d., costs 55.; Bates and Lees v John A Fowler, £1 os. 6d., costs 55.; Priest and Pearscm v Chas. Williams £7 55., ,osts £1 Ss. 6d.; Wellington T.nwaie Co. y. John 11. Sutherland, £2 14s 6d costs 10s. ( Wultei Whiting v. Jack Laribert, £2, costs 10s.;; Kate Thomas v. John Sweeney, £12 53., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Lilhnn Wall r. Ohas. Jas Wm. Wall, £10 coils £1 ss. 6d.; New Zealand Express Co., Ltd. v. Josepji Andrews, ss. costs only. v ' (Before Mr. W, G. Riddell, S.M.) INTEREST ON A MORTGAGE. DEFENDED CASES. John O'Donnell, gardener, Taita, sued Ada Maliala Cunhffe, confectioner, Wellington for £5, interest alleged to be duo on a mortgage for £1000, amounting to £20 less £15 paid. * For the plaintiff it was stated that the Interest was due on November 14, and that the £15 nas npt paid untjl after that date, a penalty or £5 being thus incurred. Fpp the defence jt was contended that the i amount \vag paid between November 11 and 14 The receipt for the £15 bore two dates. November 3 niiH Dpcnnher 3 His Worship said that it was impossible lo saj on what date the £J6 ues rmjr), and it was therefor* , i'mpo§sin/o to si) nfccthor or not the defendant had incurred a penalty for late payment. Tho plaintiff noma be non-suited, without costs. Mr. Samuejs appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Brandon, jpnr., for defendant. A MORTGAGE QUESTION. IMPORTANT 10 LAND-BROKERS. Alfred Georgo Barton, drapery buyer, claimed from George Alfred Hurley, land broker, the sum of £2 12s. 6d. Accoiding to the plaintiff's statement of claim, tho defendant it as a licensed land iroker in Wellington. In the month of May, 1908, plaintiff, being registered as proprietor of certain land, subject to a rnortgago for £50 ind interest, applied to tho mortgagee (one Bongo) to discharge tho mortgage upon payment of tho moneys then properly due and pajahle to tho mortgagee The defendant, purporting f«i act for mid on behalf of the mortgagee, and having possession of tho mortgage, refused to part with and hand over tho same, except upon payment, not only of the principal moneys and .interest properly payable to the mortgagee, which the plaintiff was ready nnd Hilling to pay, but also of certajn sums amounting to £2 12s. 6d., which tho defendant claimed as and for his own fees or charges in relation to the mortgage. Of this sum £2 2s. was for ceponses incurred iii calling in tho mortgage, and in erideavouriug to effect personal service, -and 10s. 6d,

for release of mojigage Tho plaintiff, be» jng unable to obtain possession of tho mortgage without pajment to tho defendant of tho costs and damages, paid them through hje solicitors on May 20, 1903, to tho defendant, under protest. The j/laintift alleged that tho tees and charges were demanded and pj?imed by the defendant improperly and without authoritj of law, and therefore claimed to recover them back from tho defendant. In tho alternative, the plaintiff claimed to lecover from the doiendant tho sum of £2 12s. u'd. for money received by tho defend int on Hay 20, 1008, to the use of tho plaintiffs Defendant, who conducted his own ca66, pointed out that the matter was such that lie could not very well employ a solicitor to appear for him. It was claimed by the plaintiff's solicitor that ho had no power to make ■ the charges he had made. All members of the law Society, ho thought, wpuld take the same view of tho matter, and as every solicitor in Wellington was a member of that body, he was labouring: under a great disadvantage, tho matter practically being one between the Law Society and himself. He had been a Jand-broker for twenty-fivo joars, and only once previously had hia charges been challenged Tho defendant addressed hie Worship at length, to show that he nas entitled to make the charges complained of, and that therefore the plaintiff's claim must fail. Hβ said that if Ins Worship ruled th.it landbrokers could not make such charges as he had done, one third of his income would be gone The matter was one of tbo most yital importance to land-brokers His Worship reserved his decision. Mr. Gray (instructed by Mr. Webb) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.

(Boforo Dr. A., M'Arthur, S.M.) OLD ENEMIES. A CANINE AND FELINE ENCOUNTER. Tho domestic cat and coursing greyhounds caused trouble in a Kilbirnie family recently, and the outcome vi as a civ il action, in which. T. Grosvenor, labourer (Mr. Dix), sued T. Troy, hairdresser (Mr. P W. Jackson) for £'p for the value of a cat , alleged to have been kdled by two of defendant's greyhounds. Plamtift s case set up that the cat, a valuable animal, for which he had refused £10, was outside a house at Kilbirnie on January 8 when defendant passed with several greyhounds, one of which was unleashed. It was alleged that this dog and another one, which was let go by the defendant, attacked and killed tho cat, the skin of which was produced in Court, plaintiff alleged that defendant would not call the doss off tho cat Defendant depied that he was the owner of the dogs that killed the cat. Ho certainly owned some greyhounds, and frequently took thorn out for a run, but they were never out unless they were in his charge 'and under thorough control. Further, his dogs did not tally with the description of tho dogs that killed plaintiff's cat. His Worship said he was certain tho incident did take place As to the value of the cat, he woujd assess it at £3, and would give judgment for that amount and costs £2 15s. CONCERNING A PROMISSORY NOTE. Tho Bank of New Zealand (Mr. Dalsicll) sued Jas. Brocklohurst and Geo. Brocklohurst, carriers, Petone (Mr. P. W. Jackson), for £21 15s. 7d , amount alleged to be due on a promissory note drawn m favour of plaintiff, and interest to date. After hearing tho case for plaintiff, an adjournment was made to Thursday, as defendant, George Brocklehurst, v> as not present. , CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. Baker Bros. (Mr. Fair) sued Henry Fielder (Mr. Weave) for £50, a claim for commissioa for certain wor}t done ' Defendant that the remuneration agreed upon was £25 cash, and a clock,'the. landed cost of which was £25, given to plaintiffs' agent for tho balance. Defendant paid the sum of £26 ss. into Court. After hearing the evidence his i Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £25, and the amount paid into Court and costs £2 17s. , ~. ~

RABBIT-PROOF FENCING. I ,

QUESTION OF FENCING BOUNDARIES. Mr. Riddell, S.M, delivered his reserved judgment in tne case ot James M'iMenamen, larnier, Tβ Kaminaru Bay, llakara, v. Patrick Healey, farmer,' Makaia, and" of tho same plaintift v. Johu Catley, Ernest Catley, and Allan Catley, farmers, Makara. Mr. Brown appeared for ■ tho plaintlli, and the Hon. '1. \V. Hislop for the defendants The plaintiff had served notices on the de? fendants requiring thfl ' boundary fence between them to bo converted into a labbitproof fence. Defendants objected, oil the giound that they would not aenve adequate poneht by the conversion. The plaintiff was tho occupier of about 4000 acres, upon which he grazed sheep and a small number of cattle. The defendants hold small areas up to 200 acres, and Here cattle farmers. The boundary between them was on rough country, and a iabbit-proo£ fence was said to be ol greater value to a sheep farmer holding a large area than to cattlo farmers adjojmna him, and holdinc small areas. It was admitted that rabbrts existed on both the plaintiff's pnd the defendants'. farms jn considerable numbers. Jioth parties checked increase by. poisoning,'shooting, and hunting with dogs, and the plamtitt employed a man especially ror the destruction or rabbits. He also had a rabbit-proof fe|ico on one side of his property. All agreed, said his Worship, that to obtain tho greatest beneht from a rabbit; proot tence it was necessary that a property, be wholly surrounded by it. The question between tho parties woula be more easily settled if all were uhecp farmeis, for it had been. shonn that cattle were nipro habte to destroy or damage these fences than sheep. , Section 15 ot The Fencing Act, 1908, stated that if the questions in difference between occupiera of adjoining lands related to the erection 7 of a rabbit-proof fence or the conversion of a non-rabbit-proof fence into a rabbit-proof fence, and the Magistrate decided that the receiver of the notico would not derive adequate bensfit from such erection or conversion, and therefore should not bo required to contribute the half cost thereof, then, bj Sub-seo-tion 2 the receiver of tho notice should be liable to contribute a sum equal to the half cost of erecting a sufficient non-rabbit-proof fence (unless ono already existed) together with such additional sum (if imy) us the Magistrate consideied equitable, having regard to tho benefit received from tho rabbitproof fence. The evidence as to tha benefit defendants would derive from the conversion of tho fenoo in question was not very definite, ' but each of the expert witnesses agreed that they Vfoultl obtain somo benefit from tho conversion though' not tho same amount as plaintiff would receive. A non-Tabbit-proof fence already existed beUeen'th,o parties, nnd the Coprfc could therefore fix the additional sum it considered should bo contributed by defendants under the circumstances. His Worship considered a' reasonable amount ivas one quarter of the cost of conversion, and an order to that effect would be made, against each defendant.