Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 142, 14 December 1895, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

Friday, December 18th, 1895. (Before Mr B. L. Stanford, S.M.) : Kirton and Curtis vT. H. Bitebey ; , claim £2 ss. Mr Sandilands for 'plain- j ] tiffs. Judgment for amount claimed ; ■ -with costs ss, solicitor's fee ss. J. C.Finley v L. Halcrow ; claim £2 18s 6d. Mr Beade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss, ' solicitor's fee ss. ' £. Goodbebere v Martha Snow, D. 8. Snow and S. O. Snow ; claim £121 18s 2d. Mr Richmond lor plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs £4 , 7s, solicitors^ fee £4. ' Jas. Norman v H. Sanderson ; claim : 12s 9d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. ; Judgment for 9s 9d with costs. . Jas. Norman v. Wm. Simpson ; claim £1 17s Bd. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for £1 7s 8d (10s having been paid) with costs ss. G. C Hill, clerk Feilding Borough v W. Lowe ; claim £1 17s 4d for rates. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. G. C. Hill v Bacbael Montgomery ; claim £1 3s 4d for rates. Judgment for 3s 4d (£1 having been paid) with costs ss. G. C. HillvL. H. Goldfidch; claim £10 4s 2cl for rates. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 30s. G. C. Hill v. Ellen Hannett, claim 4s 8d for rates. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. G. C. Hill, rate collector fqr Feilding Borough, v. J. Norm an ; claim £5 ,2s 8d for rates. Mr Beade appeared for defen* dant, who disputed liability. G. C. Hill deposed to defendant's name being on the rate roll. J. Prior gave evidence of defendant occupying the section. Defendant deposed to occupying tbe sections on which be was sued for rates ; had not agreed to pay the rates ; was never asked to pay rates until recently when he received a notice. To the Bench : Was not now in occupation of tbe property; had given it up about a week ago. Judgment for amount claimed with costs. H. V. Pickering v. J. S- Fowles claim £3 Is. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs 10s. J. Crichton v. W. J Goodwin; claim £<± 10s under the Workmen's Wages Lien Act. Mr Prior for plaintiff.. Judg rnent for amount claimed with coats 10a. S. Goodwin v. W. £■. Goodwin ; claim L 5. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 10s. G. Crichton v. W. 5. Goodwin ; claim L 9 6s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for amount with costs ss, solicitor's fee 10s 6d. B. Crichton v. W. J. Goodwin : claim L 5 23. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Mr Beade opposed the claim and called W. F. Cnintuings, who deposed that the plaintiff ' had been lent the amount of claim ; B. Crichton had told witness that nothing was due to him for wages. Mr Prior called A. Hutchins, who deposed, that be, Cummings, and W. J. Goodwin, when the latter told witness that the amount due to B. Crichton was for a loan ; the latter was £8 overdrawn on the contract and the amount claimed was to be lent to plaintiff. Adjourned to next Court day by consent. A. Hutchins v. W. J. Goodwin ; claim £10. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 10s, and solicitor's fee 15s 6d. The cases G.Xyon, F. Cummings, and F. J. Burrell, against W. J. Goodwin were enlarged till next Court day (January 10th). All these cases against Goodwin arose ont of attachment orders being lodged by tbe plaintiffs in each case, who were workmen on a contract for W. J. Goodwin, against money due to him from Messrs Bruce and Burrell, who lodged the balance of the contract "money amounting to £43 3s 9d in the Court, while the claims for wages amounted to £75. In opening the first case Mr Prior suggested that all claims received up to that date and allowed by the Conrt should be paid pro rata as far the money went. While the cases were proceeding Mr Beade took exception to tbe claim put in by B. Crichton, and His Worship stated that in these cases if anyone had reason to doubt the equity of claims they should state them, as a fraud might easily be perpetrated. The defendant was not present. Samuel Wilson charged Ralph Peace that he did, on November 29th, unlawfully strike and kick complainant on tbe evening of date named, in the billiard room of tbe Manchester Hotel. Mr Reade appeared for tbe complainant, and Mr Sandilands for the defendant, who pleaded " Not guilty." Samuel Wilson, deposed : On tbe evening of November 29th, went into the billiard room of the Manchester Hotel ; he sat down beside a man named Hewitt and after being there for about fifteen minutes was knocked down and kicked ; recognised his assailant as Peace ; had not spoken to defendant or given any cause for the assault; Dr Charlton dressed his face after the assault. Cross-examined by Mr Sandilands : knew no reason why Peace should strike him; received a letter on behalf of Peace threatening witness with an action, had not tried to trip accused by putting his foot out. To the Bench: It was hard to say whether accused would repeat tbe offence or not. Albert Churcher deposed : Was in the billiard room at tbe time of the offence, when he saw Peace knock complainant down and kick him ; there was blood on Wilson's face, which was black all over; did not see Wilson offer any provocation.. Cross-examined : Accused had no chance to put his foot out to try and trip Wilson ; could not swear if accused kicked Wilson, but saw him kick at the latter. Wm. Wenham deposed : Had charge of the billiard table on the evening in question ; did not see complainant offer any offence to Peace ; saw the latter strike Wilsen. Cross-examined : Did not know what took place before the assault. Frederick Hewitt deposed : Did not see Mr Wilson put out his foot to trip Mr Peace, nor did he hear the former speak to the latter ; saw Peace strike Wilson ; saw him kick at Wilson, but the table being between he and them he did not see the kick. Cross-examined: Mr Wilson did not seem to be seriously hurt. Dr Charlton deposed to attending Mr Wilson on the night in question describing the nature of the injuries received ; attended him three times ; charged him 21s for his services. Ralph Peace deposed to being agent for the Singers Sewing Machine Company, stationed at New Plymouth ; was stationed in Feilding until December 7th ; was in the Manchester Hotel billiard room on the night of Nov. 29th ; made a wager of 5s with Mr Hewitt and lost ; in going to pay Mr Hewitt, Wilson put his foot out to trip witness and barked his shin ; this irritated him and in consequence of something he (Wilson) had done he thrashed Wilson ; would not have struck complainant had it not been for the attempt to trip him. His Worship was satisfied it was an unprovoked assault, and fined accused £5 or one month's imprisonment, with costs of court 15s, witnesses' expenses £2 9s, and solicitor's fee 21 s. W. F. Elkington was charged by the police that he did unlawfully allow the carcase of a bullock to remain in the Kiwitea Stream. Accused pleaded guilty to keaving it in the stream, but stated the carcase had been burnt, leaving the

bones, which were covered over with a few inches of soil. Constable Tuohy called W. Armstrong, , Who deposed to > finding tbe •carcase in the stream and making an attempt to ■ burn it ;. could not Use the water in the stream because of^a feat that it might - * be polluted ; he had not' complained to Mr Elkington before informing the police. Constable Healey deposed to seeing I the remains of the carcase on the bed - of the stream and Constable Tnohy gave ;• ' evidence of his having warned accused' to remove tbe remains of the bullock. Accused was convicted and fined £8 with costs 18s. . Ben Poole y. John Madden ; claim J»^ 3s 6d, on two orders given on W.TFT^ Marsh. Mr Beade for plaintiff , and Mr Bichmond for defendant contended that the money was not leooveraWe, 4Mki£4t •- was obtained it was spent inrliqupr: > ~ John Madden was called by Mr Be*de. f and deposed to going to Boole's Hdfcelog ' Apiti ; the orders produced were r signed^ , by him ; denied liability to Mr Poole./ «* To Mr Bichmond: Hadnorecolfection % of signing the orders and went 'simiyc? from the hotel without any money; >'■*,:. ' Ben Poole, deposed: Kept an hotels (formerly) at Apiti ; defendant went to * witness and asked if he could cosh a cheque, which was drawn by kMr Franklin-Browne in favor of Mr Lowes ; he said he couldn't cosh it and TOi« ' asked for a.loan of £1, which ha gave ; this was repaid when he cashed a £8 ■ cheque ; defendant went to him, the next day (February 24th) for the loan of £2, which be gave ; later on Madden went to, , him for £4, and he gave him this Amount'^, it was for cash lent and not for" drinks ;' v tbe cheque held by Marsh, on which tbe'' orders were given, proved to be no good. \' Cross-examined: Befused to '••tick' up " drinks for Madden. , ,' v W. F. Marsh deposed to Madden ffbmg. " to witness with a cheque for £15»* which v witness could not cash ; gave, £3 for thY cheque; told Poole tbe orders would be all right if the cheque was cashed, but it was not. His Worship was satisfied the plaintiff > had substantiated his case, and gave I judgment for the amount claimed, with j costs 20a, witness' expenses 20s, oadsof licitor's foe 21s. « ' < , T. H. James v. Colonists Land and • Loan Corporation. Mr Saodilands, for • tbe plaintiff, made an application for a re-hearing of this case, heard ' last court ' day, and which Was for a claim of LS3 * 10s for preparing plans of a proposed building, judgment having been given' for i L 5 without costs. Mr Sandilands sub* mitted that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and that the eoste • of the plaintiff should have been allowed, oe it was usuar that they should follow * the verrdict, on the amount for- which' judgment is given. j - > .* --» "- Mr Bichmond opposed the ' application for the defendant ' Company , and - Bis Worship said that he was, in*; ' flueoced in Riving judgement' because, from the evidence, he did not 'think the - action should have been brought^into , conrt ; partly because the amount was for LIOOO and£ per cent wonld have been, a fair charge, that L 5 was offered in settle* ' inent and partly as two guineas was > the * usual fee for a sketch plan, without de- > tails. There must be new evidence before he could grant a re-hearing; the/ facts must be such as. couldn't be dis- > covered at the time of hearing, and faots : that would probably change tbe • mind of ' theindge. He did not see his, way^to grant a re-hearing and the application - would be refused with 10s 6d solicitor's./* fee. ; . ' The court then adjourned. C -S f- .