Feilding S M Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 206, 4 March 1897, Page 2

Feilding S M Court.

This Day. (Before Mr A. Greenfield, S.M.) G. J. Scot*, D.O.A. in estate of F. leen, v. Edward Keen ; claim LI 2s 6d. Vlr Sandilandg for plaint iff. Judgment or amount claimed with costs 15s. G. H. Say well v. W. Kitchen ; claim E2 Is. Mr iSitndilanda for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimad with costs Is. C. Purkiss t. 11. Stewart. Mr Sandiands for plaintiff. This was a claim for he recovery of rant and a tenement, bul be amount of rent having been paid the ;enant was allowed, by consent, to retain possession. Cost* amounting to £2 2s were allowed. A. Williamson y. E. Morris : claim £5 LBs 7d. Mr Sandilanda for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 16n and solicitor's fee 15s fid. Jbb. Ransom and Son v. Herbert BalFour ; claim £28 3s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 23s and solicitor's fee £1 11s. John Cobbe v. Henry Hincks ; claim £1 2s. Mr Sandilande for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 3s. Joseph Darraffh v. 8. P. Hodge ; claim £1 2s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with cosisSs. Chas. London v. H. Behrendt ; claim £11 17s 8d and for possession of a tenement. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 19s and solicitor's fee 265. John Cobbe v. W. S. Hill ; claim 6a 9d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. \V. A. Sandilsnds v. W. H. Bishop ; a judgment summons claim £1 11s 6d. Amount, totalling £3 11s 6d including costs, to be naid forthwith or in default 10 days' imprisonment. The order was suspended for two months on the application of the defendant, who arrived late, and who stated he was unable to pay the amount as he was already paying £1 per week on a previous judgment. David Short was charged, on the in formation of Thos. W. Giese, with having assaulted the latter on the night of February 20 by striking him in the face, severely cutting him, Constable Tuohy conducted the case for the police, and Mr Reade appeared for the defendant, who pleaded " not guilty." The informant gave evidence of having come from the rear of the Empire Hotel at about 11 o'clock, when he was struck in the face ; be immediately "closed" with Short, but they were separated. Constable He ally deposed to the row, and saw Giese and Short lighting ; he stopped the r»w. W. Orton deposed to hearing the dis> turbancs in FerguSßon street on the night in question ; be was in bed in the Empire Hotel nnd did not known who was in the row. For the defence — David Short deposed that the row started through remarks mad* by Giese, who offered to fight defendant ; they both pulled their coats off and Giese struck at defendant, who dodged the blow and was about to strike back, when Lowe and others prevented witness striking ; denied striking informant. J. T. Strawbridge gave evidence to the effect that Short did not strike in« formant. Wm. Lowe, also gave evidence to the same effect. The case was dismissed, no costs being allowed. William Lowe was charged on the information of T. W. Giese with having struck the latter with a stone in the mouth on the night of February 20th. Constable Tuohy conducted the case for the prosecution and Mr Reade appeared for accused, who pleaded " not guilty." Complainant deposed to the stone being thrown at witness and to his and a Mr Somerville chasing accused bnt they could not oaten him. [Thin incident was before the row from which the previous case arose.] B. Hollier deposed to seeing Giese chasing Lowe around the Square ; Giese's face was not ecu; at the time. Constable Henlly did not know anything about stone throwing, neither was it reporced to him, until after the row when Giese went to the police station and said his face wasi cut. The information was dismissed without costs and without hearing the evidence for the defence. Raika Kereama v. Wm. Baker ; claim £22. Mr Prior for the plaintiff and Mr Reads for the defendant. This was a claim arising out of an agreement for the construction of a. gig by the defendant for the plaintiff. Defendant was to construct the gig to an agrsed pattern for £20 and to take a waggonette valued at £I'J in part payment. The claim was for £12 or the return of the waggonette, £5 for damages for detention of the waggonette and for £5 paid at the time the gig was ordered, the gig not baying been constructed according to instructions and as at first arranged. The waggonette in question had bean returned since these proceedings had been instituted. The defence was that a gig was to be constructed at a cost of about £14, and a waggonette, valued at .£6, was to be taken in part payment. After plaintiff had seen the gig and found fault with it the defendant was willing to return the waggonette and the money paid providing plaintiff would pay half of the hire of a sulky hired by the latter while the gig was being built. Plaintiff alleged the sulky was to be supplied to him free of charge owing to delay in constructing the gig, bnt the defendant denied that he should be liable for the whole amount and wanted to charge plaintiff with half the*eost to defendant, who put in a counter claim of £7 10s 6d, £7 being for hire of sulky alleged to be due by defendant to S. Daw from whom the sulky was hired, and 10s 6d solicitor's costs. Plaintiff and Mr W. N. Cathro gave evidence of interviews with the defendant on matters connected with the agreement and defendant gave his version of what transpired. Judgnient was given for plaintiff for £5, with costs Bs, and solicitor's fee 265.