Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 150, 11 June 1891, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, June 10th. . , (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) O. Evans v. J. Donoyan ; claim £1 19s ' 9d. Mr Prior for plain tiff. No appear- \ ance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs., Bailey Bros, and Cornfoot v. Enera te Nuku; claim £30 16s 3d. Judgment for plaintiffs, and costs to De paid in one month. "W. G. Haybittle v. N. Charlfcon. This ■was a case of interpleader, in which the landlord of the house of. defendant. claimed an amount for rent out of the proceeds of a forced sale of defendant's goods by ,the plaintiff. Mr , Sandilands appeared for Mr Haybittle, and Mr Richmond for r the landlord. Mr Sandilands applied for "an "adjournment on the ground of not feeing able to bring two of his principal witnesses. Mr Richmond objected, but was agreed to adjourn the "* case till the next Court day. » x R. Telchi v. Armstrong and Bishop; claim ,£S '12s Bd. "Mr. Richmond for plaintiff. ' No, appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. , . J. Menzies v. Armstrong and Bishop ; • claim £5 13s. Mr Richmond for plaintiff. No appearance of 'defendants. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. C Bull v. J. H. Blackmore ; claim 13s. Hr'Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Prior ior defendant. Thiß was a defended case, partly,- heard on the previous Court day and adjourned. The defendant, who is poundkeeper to the Borough of Peilding, now gaye his_evidence in cross-examina"-tion at considerable length. T. Foster, the Borough ranger, testified 1 to the pounding of horses, the putting up of the notices by the poundkeeper, and seeing them afterwards, apparently hay- '_ ingbeen maliciously destroyed. The witness was strictly cross-ex-amined. R. Arnott was called to state the time when the impounding . in question took place. „ " Mr Prior contened that the defendant had to the utmost of his power complied with .the Act, but jn his endeavour ' „ "to do so,had been prevented by the mali- ,' - cious'or mischievous action 'of some perion unknown, a'nd had not, in 'any way, failed in the -discharge of his duty. He also pointed out from the action that the plaintiff had not taken' proceedings within the, time prescribed. t „", Mr Sandilands admitted the legality of the impounding, but held that no sufficient 'notice had* been put up, and that «xtra expenses had been incurred unnecessarily by the removing of the horses to the pound paddock and in advertising, and that plaintiff had a right to recover the amount "of claim paid under protest. - „ ' His Worship held that irom the cvi : - ' Series 'khe''proper notices had been put up, but torn down. He did not think plain - ' tiff had suffered any , damage by the Lorses 'having been removed to the pad- '' "clock. The plaintiff should also have taken r the usual course of asking the poundkeeper whether he had anything of r his impounded. A nonsuit was entered ■against the plaintiff- with costs. R. Telchi v- E. Schwas's ; claim 18s. This was an application for a re-hearing of a case heard on the last Court day (when judgment went against the defendant)~on the ground that he was unavoid-' ably preyente~d from being present in time. Mr Prior for defendant. Mr San- . ' dilandß, for plaintiff, objected to a re-hear- , ing. i Defendant being put into the box, gave ■evidence of his/intention to have defended the action, but of being prevented attend- "'* ing till after judgment had been given. -*.s>r ; Otfcoth counsel' having addressed the i €ourt, His Worship grarited are-hearing -on the amount and costs 12s being paid into Court by . defendant. ' Alice Dunovan applied for a prohibition ' order under the Licensing Act against her > Timothy Dunovan. The applicant gave evidence, as did also Constable Tuohey, and an order was made out to apply to the licensing districts of Feilding, , Kiwitea, Halcombe, Palmerston, and Oroua. r , ; . AFFILIATION CASE. ' ( Noble v. -Bray. — On the information of JSrnily Noble, Frank Bray was charged with being the' father 1 of the illegitimate male child of the and with iaving neglected to contribute towards its support. Mr Prior appeared* for the complainant and Mr Sandilandß for the , defendant.' The complainant was examined and cross-examined at great length. Her "mother, . the . nurse, and another female also gave evidence. His Worship pointed out the great confusion in the dates of the several letters put in, which' *Mr Prior,acknowledged, and asked for a ''dismissal without prejudice, as he thought he would be able to reconcile the confusion in the dates of the letters, and thus ' be better able to 'support the charge on a new hearing. Mr Sandilands offering no objection the case was accordingly dis-" v missed without t prejudice, each party to i " pay their own costs. < The Court then adjourned.