Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 38, 12 September 1889, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, September 11th, 1889. (Before Mr Brabant, 8.M.) G. P. Church v. H. Young.— Claim £2 9s lid. Adjourned on the application of Mr Sandilands. G. H. Say well v. W. Moore.— Claim £S 12s. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s. Prior and Sandilands y. Wi.-ihana I-lunia. — Claim £2 15s. Judgment for plaintiffs and costs. impounding case. J. T. Foster v. Alfred Hannet. Mr Cooke for complainant and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was a charge of rescuing a horse when on its way to the pound, from the Ranger, on the 3rd inst. Mr Cooke called J. T. Foster, who deposed : He was the Banger for the Borough ofFeilding (appointment produced) ; had impounded a horse on Derby street ; saw Hannett driving three horses ; Hannett said he must not take the mare as she was in his charge ; Hannett took the horse from witness and drove it away with the three others. Cross-examined by Mr Sandilands : Hannett interfered with him first near the Catholic Church ; was driving towards the pound ; was fetching the horse down the road ; he was going home ; the mare did not break away and get with the others until after Hannett got hold of witnesses horse and held him ; described the mares belonging to Hannett ; Hannett did not complain of witness overdriving the mares when in foal ; had the mare in charge before he saw Hannett. Re-examined : If Hannett had been near he would have seen him. Robert Arnott deposed : He knew Mr Hannett's horses ; remembered the mare being impounded by the Ranger ; saw Hannett in Lytton street opposite Fraser's, with three horses, between 6 and 7 a.m. ; Hannett was about half a mile off; he drove the horses towards the Catholic Church ; saw no other horses at the time ; saw Foster afterwards, wHo told, -witness Hannett had takenja horse away from him. Cross-examined : First saw Hannett in front of Fraser's ; was busy putting their own cows in to be milked so did not take much notice of Hannett ; there are logs along the road ; could not see any horses ahead of Hannett ; did not look for anything else than the three horses Hannett had ahead of him. Re-examined : If there had been a fourth horse he would have seen it. For the defence Mr Sandilands called Alfred Hannett, who deposed : On September 3rd found his horses near Brennan Marshall's ; brought them along Lytton street ; at Monrnouth street one horse went one way and three the other ; a mare fell down, and when he had got her up he saw Foster going for one of the mares ; warned him she was in Ins charge ; Foster commenced to gallop them about, and cautioned him as the mare was worth forty guineas someone would have to pay ; the ranger left witness and drove two of Mr Gould's horses into his gate ; Foster tried to take the old mare and witness prevented him. Cross-examined : Did not seize Foster's bridle ; did not see Arnott's boy ; admitted his horses were out all night ; Foster was four chains off when he first saw him ; the mare broke away at Fraser's ; she went down Monmouth street into Derby street ; could not see her in Derby street ; Foster rode from Kimbolton road ; was never more than 6 chains from the mare ; did not see Arnott, did not look for him in fact. Re-examined : The mare was never out of his sight until she got into Derby street. This was the case for the defence. Mr Cooks asked the R.M. to decide the point as to whether it was legal for a man to rescue an animal from the Ranger when the latter was not in legal possession thereof. The R.M. said'he assumed a public officor would know his duty and it seemed to be allowed on both sides the public were permitted to drive horses on the road. Mr Cooke did not admit this. The R.M. remarked in some towns it was not allowed. Mr Sandilands said it was the custom here or cattle and stock could not be driven to the sale yards. The R.M. in giving judgment, said there was a conflict of evidence between vie parties, therefore the defendant must have the benefit of the doubt and the case must be dismissed, without costs. Cobbe and Darragh v. W. Watson. — Claim i>lo 5s 7d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiffs. Mr Cobbe proved the claim. Judgments for plaintiffs with costs 495. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. A. Hannet v. A. Fredsburg. — Claim £6 18s. Mr Sandilands said i' 4 19s had been paid on account, and asked for a jndgment for the balance with the additional costs. Judgment for £2 6s, to be paid in 14 days or in default three days in Wanganui gaol. W. G. Haybittle v. Fred Klink.— Claim £3 2s 7d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, ordered to be paid within 2 months, or in default 4 days in Wanganui gaol. S. J. Thompson v. D. E. Amesbury. — £24 Is Bd. Mr Cooke for plaintiff. Defendant said he was unable to pay since the judgement was given against him on the 9th of May ; had received £56 8s 6d since then ; had paid it away in small accounts ; had no property ; his furniture was settled on his wife, it was bought with his money ; had pa ; d Mr Thompson nothing since the judgment was given. Ordered that defendant pay Is 8d in one month or in default 24 days imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. D. R. Lewers v. D. E. Amesbury. — Claim £14 15s 6d. Ordered to be paid in one month or in default 14 days imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. J. C. Morey and Co. v. G Moss. — Claim £5 9s 2d. Mr Cooke for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Defendant said he had only had £1 11s 2d this month ; had done no other work ; had only one child nine weeks old ; had only bought stores ; did not know whether an accordeon had been bought since the 14th of August; had made his own furniture. Mr Sandilands explained the position of his client who was under an order to pay £1 per month already. Mr Cooke arked that an order for £1 a month be made. Mr Sandilands objected. The R.M. thought defendant could afford to pay £2 per month, therefore an order to pay £1 per month in this case was made, with no order for imprisonment in default. This was all the business.