Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XIX, Issue 7, 8 July 1897, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

THIS DAY, (Before A. Greenfield, S.M. Bramwell Bros. v. H. V. Pickering ; claim £4 4s 4d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff asked for costs as the amount bad been paid less costs ; judgment was given for costs 13s. P. J. Mnrtagh v. A. P. Knight ; claim £2 2. Mr Reade for plaintiff asked to have the case adjourned until next court day in the unavoidable absence of plaintiff Mr Guy opposed the adjournment and tbe case was struck out ; 10s 6d solicitor's fee and 10s 6d defendant's expenses were allowsd the defence. P. J. Mnrtagh v. C. Hawkeu ; claim £1 10s ; and P. J. Murtagb v. T. Dobbs, claim £2 10s, were struck out in tbe absence of plaintiff ; in tbe last case 10s 6d was allowed the defendant. J. Miller v. Ruera te Nuku ; ajudg* ment summons claim 111 7s 6d ; Mr Readc for plaintiff. The amount to be paid before August 4th, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment. Bramwell Bros v. P. Dowdall ; a judgment summons claim £4 2s6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiffs and Mr Reade for defendant. Ability to pay not being shown no order was made. Alex Williamson v. J. Cowdry ; a judgment summons claim M 13s 4d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Order made by consent tbat the amount be paid at the rate of £1 per month. Albert Mcßetb, a settler, was charged on the information of the police with having driven cattle through tbe bor* ough between tbe hours of 12 noou and sunset, without special permission from tbe Borough Conncil, contrary to the provisions of the bye laws. Tbe defendant pleaded " guilty " and stated tbat he was nnaware of the existence of the bye- law. It was pointed out by Mr Sandilands tbat it was customary to drive cattle through the borough every day in the week, and tbis bye-law was never enforced, neither was it tbe intention of tbe Council when the bye law was framed, to enforce it for some time to come. Tbe defendant was fined la wfthont costs. Prohibition orders were granted against J. H. Anderson, J. P. Curreen »nd A. Rale. Bramwell Bros. v. W. Entwisle ; claim ill 0s 2d. Mr Sandilands tor plaintiffs and Mr Haggitt for defendant. In opening tbe case for tbe plaintiffs Mr Sandilands stated tbe claim was for £13 17s 3d, less £2 17s Id which was admitted and had been paid by the de fendant, who based his defence on bavins j paid amounts of i 7 aud i.4 Ths plaintiffs alleged these amounts had been credited twice in error— once at Feilding and again at Colyton, they having two businesses. Tbe defence allnped that from the accounts rendered by plaintiffs there was now no further amount due to them. W. F. Bramwell and D. Wil. son (tbo Colyton manager for Bramwell Bros.) gave evidence in support of the claim, the latter producing the cash books and ledger showing the amount claimed to be due and he explained how he had inadvertently credited defendant with £7 in accounts, tbe error not being noticed until balancing some six months later. The defendant gave evidence as to amounts paid by bim, which included one amount of £1 in dispute. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £i, with coßts 15s and solicitor's fee 265. R. Robinson v. B. Poole ; claim, £2. Mr Catbro for plaintiff and Mr Reade for defendant. A counter claim of £1 5s was made by defendant, who paid 15s and costs 8s into court in settlement ment of the claim, A further sum of 15s wan claimed by Mr Catbio as mileage on the summons, this amount being omitted by a clerical error. R. Robinson deposed to having carried tbe mails on two days for defendant, for which he claimed £2. For tbe defence, J. Norman and B. Poole gave evidence of having carried plaintiff's boy and his papers, for which he claimed 25b. Judgment waa given for the amount claimed, less ss, which was allowed on account of the counter claim, with costs 265. No solicitor's fee was allowed. (Left sitting.)