Feilding R.M- Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 96, 29 January 1885, Page 2

Feilding R.M- Court

Wednesday, January 27, 1885. (Before E. Ward, Esq., R.M.,) FEROCIOUS doo. James Harvey was charged on the information of Constable Meehan with, keeping a ferocious and dangerous dog, which he allowed to be at large without being muzzled. Defendant did not appear. This case was heard on the last court day, but was dismissed? withoutprejudice. , The witnesses Boal and Roake gave similar evidence to that in the former case, and also in the civil action -in which judgment was given against llie defendant for damages and injuries inflicted on Boal by the dog. ''•--• * Constable Gillespie deposed tothe' dog still being at large unmuzzled. Constable Meehan applied lor-: authority for the dog to be destroyed. It was ordered that the dog be des-. troyed forthwith, and that defendant be fined 5s and costs 1 3s with witnesses' expenses 2s 6d each. Defendant now appeared, and said, he was not in a position to pay the; penalty. ■,■■•-.- His Worship said he had made the fines as light as possible, and did not wish to be hard with defendant. Fourteen days were allowed for payment of the amount. civil cases. Manchester Boad Board v Farquhar McLeod.— Claim £11 12s 7d forrafesC The defence was that defendant had received no notice of the rates. r li:, - : - Charles Bray, junr., collector to the said Board, deposed to his having; duly posted the notice to defendant in the regular way. The Bench said that nothing was required beyond sending notices by post, and judgment was given for plaintiffs with costs. Alex Managh v B. Neilson. — Claim £3 for balance of proceeds of the sale of a horse. Mr Prior appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Goodbehere for defendant. Mr Goodbehere applied for an adjournment on the ground that defendant had a set-off, and had hoihad time to prepare a defence. Adjourned till after 12 o'clock. .... >j Peter Beid v Svanninge, DalHsoxi and Hong. — Claim £16 19s for wages. Mr Goodbehere appeared for defendants. Mr Svanninge confessed, tiie claim and applied for time tb pay, stating in writing the position of-the firm, who were formerly sawmillers at Makino. He offered to pay £2 per month, which plaintiff declined to accept, as he believed the defendants were in a position to pay the claim. Mr Goodbehere as solicitor to the firm, gave an explanation of the-posi-tion of their affairs, and urged, for time to pay, which it was within' ihe discretion of the court to give. - ■{' Judgment was given for the amount and costs, to be paid at the rate of £2 per month, for the first 3 months,. and the balance within one month afterwards.

Wm. BeU v J. W. Jones, of Wanganui. Judgment summons for~£9 1 6s 3d. Mr Prior appeared for plaintiff. Ordered to be paid at the'rate of 5s per week, in default 9 days', imprisonment. R. Loudon v R. B. Fearon. — Judgment summons for £7 12s 4d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Defendant was examined by plaintiff as to his financial position. Had some land, worth £4 12s 6d per acre, but could not sell it; if he could sell j it could pay his debts and have a considerable surplus. Witness here-ex-plained his position as tothe securities on his property, &c. X H. L. Sherwill deposed to his having instructions to sell defendant's land, but there was no sale for it ; defendant had done his best to sell the land, which was worth £4 10s per acre, and would pay off the mortgage and all defendant's liabilities. Case adjourned for 3 months. H. G. Hewitt v Roots & Svanninge. — Claim £20 4s for wages. Mr Prior, instructed by Mr Staite, for plaintiff, and Mr Goodbehere for defendants, who disputed the claim. A notice of dissolution of the partnership when Roots was one of the firm was produced, but Mr Prior contended that the so-called dissolution was only a blind, as to his knowledge Roots had taken the same part in the business as heretofore, and was to all intents and purposes still a member of the firm. Plaintiff was examined, and produced his wages book, showing the time he had worked and the dates; was engaged by and for Mr Roots, and never had his position as a servant transferred from Roots to any other person ; when he asked other members of the firm about his money was told they would have to see Roots first. Cross-examined: Only heard casually that they had dissolved partnership. Robert Reid deposed to working for the firm, and Svanninge saying he would see Roots about witness' money, and afterwards paying it ; they always said when asked for money they would have to see Roots. Peter Reid deposed to asking Svanninge for money, and being referred to Roots; this was after the so-called dissolution. H. H. Svanninge, examined by Mr Prior, deposed that Roots had coUected money for him as his agent, but had not paid any wages ; the men were sometimes sent to Roots to see if lie had the money ; had not * said that no couldn't pay because Roots had not given him the money. By Mr Goodbehere: The dissolution was perfectly bona fide ; Roots had no, interest in the business since the dissolution, and had only given advice and collected accounts for the present firm ; did not deny his own liability in the present claim. At this stage His Worship said he had not sufficient evidence of the, liability of Roots, and would give judgment for plaintiff against Svanninge for the amount and costs, the name of Roots to be struck out. Managh v NeUson. This case was again called on, and the claim was admitted. Defendant made a long statement in explanation of his set-off, which

' il:\.:i

amounted to £2 17s 4d. He was cross-examined and re-examined. Plaintiff,. in course of a long examination, disputed the claim for the set-off, which he heard nothing of till Monday last. • His Worship said there had been a good deal of hard swearing, but he would allow 14s of the set-off, and give judgment for the balance of the claim, £2 6s. The case of the desertion of two children by James White, of Christchurch, was again brought up. Mrs Cornwall, who has charge of them, again appeared with them in court, and was asked to let the Clerk of the Court know if she would continue to take care of them if the Government would make an allowance for their support, it being understood that His Worship would make an application to that effect. '- Mrs Cornwall somewhat pressed for a definite order to be at once made. Constable Meehan was instructed to lay a fresh information against the father, and His Worship would issue a warrant the same day for his arrest, when he would be brought to Feilding to answer to the charge. Charles Roev Keisenberg. — Claim £4 5s 6d for accommodation, board, and refreshments at the Denbigh Hotel. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Charles Roe, junr:, gave evidence of the claim. Defendant did not appear. His Worship said he had no power, without defendant's confession, to make an order for the Is for refreshments, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for £4 4s 6d and costs. Judgment by default with costs was given for ihe plaintiffs in the following cases: Manchester Road Board v Thomas Sexton, £3 15s 2d; W. G. Haybittle v R. B. Fearon, £2 8s ld; Same v James Palmer, £4 17s 7d; Same v James Morris, 17s 6d; Same v E. Malcolm, £2 2s ld, the last named to be paid at £1 per month. The court then adjourned.