Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 242, 17 April 1896, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

THIS DAY. j (Before R. L. Stanford, S.M.) i Kirton and Curtis v. L. lsberwood ; ' claim £1 ss. Mr Sandilands for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs ss. D. Younger v. H. J. K. Roe ; claim £1. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Tbe amount having been paid, judgment was given for costs 10s. C. J. Bennett v. A. Nicholson ; claim £1 15s. Judgment for amount claimed, with coats ss ; immediate execution granted. C. J Bennett v. N. Nicholson ; claim £3 ss. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. Manawatu Timber Company v. Thos. Quinlivan ; claim £2 16s Sd. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff company. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs ss. Same v. Cameron and Clarke ; claim £5. Mr Sandilands for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 11s, aud solicitor's fee 15s 6d. J. P. Cowie v. W. H. Duncan ; claim .£25 17s 6d. Mr Satidilands for plaintiff. Judgment for .£l2 17s 6d, the balance having been paid, with costs 11s, and solicitor's fee 265. James Burke v. Miss Melina E. Harris; claim £89. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs 14s, and solicitor's fee 15s 6d. E. F. Eagar v. Jesse Tapp ; claim LI f>s Mr Sandiiaticls for pl&iutiff. Judgment for amouat claimed, with, costs Bs, and solicitor's fee 15s Gd. Alfred Hannett was charged on the information of E. L. Helen, that he did desert his wife and seven children. Accused pleaded not guilty. Tho police prosecuted. Mrs Hauuett deposed that her husband left her in October last. Accused pleaded that ho bad not deserted her as be bad been travelling with a horse and earned very little money ; he was on his way home when arrested. Order made for the payment of £3 for rations supplied by the Feildmg Borough Council and 15s a week for tho niaiutenance ot' his wife aud family, with costs of court 10s, tbe first payment to be made on tbe 24th insfc. John Jones was charged on the information of the police that he did on March 29, supply liquor to a prohibited person. Accused pleaded "not guilty" aud was defended by Mr Sandilands. CoustabJcs Ideally aud Tuohy gave evidence in support of the charge, deposing that they watched accused t.ikin^ the liquor to the house (Mrs Cook's) in which they also saw the prohibited person. The information was dismissed, the prohibition order bc;iug a bad one, having been made by a J.P. A prohibition order was mado, on the application of the police, against J. D. McLaurin to have effect to all licensed premises between the Rangilikei and Otaki rivers. F. Flavall, Borough Inspector, charged Ernest Stevens with having phed an unlicensed vehicle for hire withiu the Borough of Feilding on April G and 7. G. C. Hill (Town Clerk), the Inspector and R. H. Garlick gave evidence in support of tbe charges (two). Accused was fined 20k on the first information and £3 on the second, with 7s costs and 10s 6d solicitor's fee in each case. Mr Prior appeared for the prosecution. R. Macfarlane was charged, on the information of F. Flavall, with having plied an unlicensed passenger ychicle for hire. Mr Prior appeared for the prosecution. Accused pleaded " not guilty." The Town Clerk, the Inspector and R. PI. Garlick gave evidence in support of the information. Case dismissed, defendant having denied that he took money for carrying the passengers. L. H. Goldfinch was charged on the information of F. Flavall with having plied an unlicensed passenyer vehicle for hire. Mr Prior appeared for the prosecution. Accused pleaded that he took out a license on April 11th, 1895, and understood that it stood good to April 11th this year. Fined Is, with costs 7s. F. Flavall v. Colonists' Laud and Loan Corporation. Mr Prior for informant and Mr Richmond for defendant corporation. This was an information laid by the Borough Inspector against the defendant company for having erected a building close against a building already erected, without providing a brick parting wall. F. Flavall, deposed : Before buildings were commenced the plans had to be submitted to witness for approval ; the defendant company erected a building, one wall being close against another building, and no brick parting wall was provided ; signed the plans on the understanding given by the builder, Mr Pope, that the shed already there was to be pulled down. The defence was that the plans bad been signed by the Inspector. F. Pope deposed to giving the plans to the Inspector for approval, and they were signed by the Inspector ; Mr Flavall inspected the proposed site of the building before siguing the plans ; did not say the Corporation intended to pull the adjoining building down. T. Wood also gave evidence. His Worship understood that the case arose out of a misapprehension, and it was quite clear Mr Pope and his employers did all they thought necessary by getting the Inspector's permission. He would dismiss the case on the grounds that the authorised omVer of the Borougu Council certified that the plans and specifications were jn accordance with the bye-laws in reference to this building,, Witness 1 expenses 153, solicitor's fee 21s, and costs of Court Us, were allowed to the defendants. L. H. Goldfinch v. B. McColl ; claim £5 17s 6d. Mr Reade for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence in support of the claim, which was for stabling two stallions, and denied that he was aware two of his mares had been served. The defence was that two of plaintiff's mares bad been served in payment for the stabling and hire of a horse, and that defendant was not responsible for the hire of a horse, but that his servant, Robert Reid, was. Robert Keid and defendant gave evidence to the effect that the former hired a horse from plaintiff on bis own account and that be served a mare in payment for it, another mare was, ajso, served which was to ba charged against ,the stabling. Judgment was given for the amount claimed with cost? l v os and solicitor's fee 2Gs. Execution stayed until nest court day to epa,ble defendant to file a counter claim.