Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 185, 8 February 1896, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

Friday, February 7th, 1896. (Before Mr R. L. Standford, S.M.) William Darragh v. Hakaraia te Wheno; claim i'l9 7s ld. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. This was a re-hear-ing of the case re-instated on tlie application of defendant in order that he might givo evidence at Otaki, but on the case being called defendant did not appear. Judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs £2 6d, and solicitor's fee £1 16s 6d. C. Carr v. E. Pitavy; claim £35. Mr Richmond for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands (instructed by Mr Sandeman) for defendant. Judgment by confession for amount claimed with costs £1 15s, and solicitor's fee il lis. J. C. Thompson v. A. Butler ; claim £1 2s. Mr Richmond (instructed by Mr Prior) for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. Geo. Flyger v. E. McCleary ; claim £3. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 5s and solicitor's fee ss. Geo. Flyger v. W. Hollier ; claim £3 10s. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amonnt claimed with costs ss, and solicitor's fee ss. A. H. Tompkins v. J. H. Taylor ; claim £\o 15s 3d. Mr Sandilands (instructed by Mr Sandeman) for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 15s, and solicitor's fee 15s 6d. W. T. Watts v. A. Butler ; claim £1 10s. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. Austin Moss, Ranger for Kiwitea County, v. C. Bath. This was a case under the Police Offences Act for allowing ten head of cattle to run on the road within the Kiwitea County. Mr Sandilands for defendant, who pleaded " guilty." Mr Sandilands asked that only a nominal penalty be inflicted as a portion of defendant's land wasunfenced, he having been unable to fence as he had a difficulty to ascertain the names of adjoining property- holders. Fined 5s and costs 7s. Same v. W. Chamberlain. Three charges for similar offences. Defendant, in pleading " guilty," said that he had been unable to fence a portion of his land as the road had not been laid off. Fined 2s 6d and costs 7s in each case. L. W. Anderson and others v. David Tucker ; claim £5 12s. This was a case which arose out of the alleged breach of contract by plaintiffs in not completing a bushfelling contract, defendant refusing to pay the balance of the money due for tlie work done for the reason stated. L. W. Anderson was examined as to the agreement with defendant and staged the quantity of " scrubbing " done by he and his mate was I'd acres, the original agreement being varied to allow them to cease work where they had. In cross-examination he stated they had ceased work as the contract did not pay them. At this stage this case was adjourned until next court day.