Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 304, 3 May 1894, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

THIS DAY. (Before Mr Brabant, S.M.) John Gould v. Win. Watts ; claim £7 17s 5Ad. Mr Sandilanda for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 12s, and solicitor's fee 15s 6d. Henry Hickford v. A. Hawes ; claim 9s 4d Judgment for the amount olaimed with costs 6g. A. J. Arnold and Co. v. John Bead and F. Stokes ; claim £33 9s BJd. Mr Beade for plaintiff Judgment for amount claimed with costs £8 2s and solicitor's fee 21s. A. R. Allan v. Wm. Whiskar; claim £7 Is 2d. Mr Sandilanda for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 103, solicitor's fee 15s 6d. H V. Pickering v. H. O Fowles ; claim £1 14s sd» Mr Prior for plaintiff. £1 with 3s cost of summons was paid into court. Judgment for 14s 5d was given for plaintiff. A. L. Parr v. S. J. Thompson ; claim £6 7s 6d. Mr Beade for plaintiff. Mr Thompson appeared for himself and gave evidence to the effect that he had contra accounts against plaintiff. Mr Beade contended that as defendant's estate had been assigned he could not claim a set off, but the trustees could bring an action to claim the amount ofcontras. which it was alleged were owing by members of plaintiff's family A L. Parr and B* Parr (father of plaintiff) gave evidence in sap. port of the claim. - His Worship thought that defendant should have an opportunity of producing his books (which were in the hands of Messrs Cooke and (iray) or other evidence, and would adjourn the case, as defendant wished to pest court day. H. N. Pickering charged E. Whitehead with having illegally charged 9s impound, age fees for the trespass of certain cattle on defendant's property on April 80th. Mr Sandilanda appeared for the plaintiff and quoted the Impounding Act in cup« port of his contention that the fees were excessive and that defendant was not entitled to recovery of damages as there was no fence between plaintiff's and defendant's properties, but a creek Also, that defendant could only claim for maintaining the cattle or driving feet under the circumstances. H. V. Pickering gave evidence in sups port of the information. Mr Whitehead read the sections of the Impounding Act by which he was guided, and contepded that he was justified in the steps he had taken. His Worship decided that driving fees could only be claimed when the cattle were driven to where the owner resided or to the pound, and that in the present case they were only driven to another paddock, where they were impounded. It was clear that the charge of 6s for sustenance was the only one that could be made. The order of the court was that 3s be returned, with costs of-court 7s. D F. Moriarty v. T. M Jackson ; claim £2 Ob lid. Mr Richmond for plaintiff (who, was unable to attend) and Mr Keade for defendant. £1 15s lid was admitted by defendant and judgment was given for that amount with costs 225. These being all the cases set down for hearing for to day's sitting, the court adjourned to the 17th inst