MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2341, 6 November 1908, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5. (Before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M.)

CIVIL CASES.

Judgment for plaintiffs was given in each of the following cases: Richard. Black (Mr. Sainsbury) v. .George Brown, claim £lO Is, costs £1 16s 6d; H. J. Andrews v. George Walsh, costs £1 8s (the amount, of claim had been paid); ’Benjamin Taylor (Mr. Kirk) v. Frederick Criediand .claim £5 13s 9d, costs £1 3s 6d; G. F. Preddy (Mr. Kirk) v. Clias. W. Moore, claim £1 11s 6d, costs os; Common, Shelton and iCo. (Mr. Stock) v. Amy Shelton, claim £6O 0s 2d, costs £4; Pilcher Bros. (Mr. Bright) v. 'Cosmo F. Humphreys, claim £4 17s od, costs £1 3s 6d ; Henry Adair (Mr. Bright) v. Mary Lynch, claim £3 4s, and costs 10s.

In the cases Common, Shelton and Co v. Joseph Burke, and the judgment summons case W. A. Friar v. same, there was no appearance, defendant being bankrupt. The case of W. J. P. Gaudin (Mr. G. Stock) v. D. Rogers (Mr. H. Bright) was called on, but was struck out- on the application of Mr. (Stock, costs £4 2s being allowed. An application to take evidence in the case E. A. Slack, Arthur Wade, and Francis Stafford v. James Atbridgo Connell was called on. Mr. Hei stated that in view of the Supreme Court action taken by the defendant the plaintiffs desired to discontinue this case. It was then, formally called, and there being no appearance the case was struck out. A MACHINERY CLAIM.

The case of Cecil Bartrancl cleLautour (Mr. G. Stock) v. Charles Taylor (Mr. T. Alston Coleman), claim for £l7, in connection with a machine supplied, was then proceeded with. Evidence of a former employee of defendant’s was received, from V eliiiigtoii, and read. William Horne, cabinetmaker, in the employ of Messrs Grundy and Shennan, said that- in April last he was in defendant’s employment. He remembered seeing the band saw being worked- nearly every day. A lot of saws used to be broken. The machine was worked for nearly three months.

To Mr. Coleman: He was not personally competent to work -a band saw and had never done so. Tlie machine was not’dangerous. George Bannister said he had been employed to fix a ..guard to defendant’s band saw early in February. He had seen the saw in use, and knew that the saws had been breaking. He had put two- guards on the machine for the purposes of protection, but notwithstanding, tlie saws would still fly off. Mr. Ccf!eman intimated that he wished to call further evidence, and the case was adjourned until the 27th inst. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. The following -judgments were given:—Rees Bros. (Mr. Bright) v. Tamuti Marutu, ordered to pay £27 6s (including costs), .in default 28 days’ imprisonment ; A. 11. Gillman (Mr. Hei) v. Tuwa Poata, ordered to pay £l4 2s 7-d, or in default lo days’ imprisonment; W. A. O’Meara (Mr. Hei) v. Karelia Tutapa (Mr. Finn), claim £29 18s 9c!, to he paid within 30 days, in default 30 days’ imprisonment; J. T. Tuck and others (Mr. W. Nolan) v. Abraham Levy McDaniel, claim £6 11s, in default 7 days’ imprisonment; E. R. Dufaur (Mr. W. Nolan) v. Thomas Sweet, claim £27 19s, order for immediate payment, in default 28 days’ imprisonment. RESEIi VED JUD GMENT—CAMERON v. RODGERS. His Worship delivered the following reserved judgment in the case of Cameron v.- Rougers :—“This is an action to recover from the plaintiff upon the following statement of claim: The plaintiff claims to recover from the derendant possession of one filly foal of the value of £lO, the property of the plaintiff, and unlawfully detained by the defendant from the 3rd day of August, 1908, until the date of the entering of the plaint herein. And the plaintiff says that before tl*3 entering of such plaint, to wit, on the 27th day of August, 1908, ■he demanded the said foai from the defendant, but the defendant refused to deliver her. The plaintiff claims possession of the said foal or £lO in case possession cannot be had, and £5 damages for the detention. I am of opinion, after considering the evidence, and surrounding circumstaiices, that the yearling filly, released by the defendant from the Ormond pound on the 4th August, 1908, was the property of plaintiff, and, further, that it and the one seen by witnesses Neenan and Parsons at ■Matawhero about a fortnight later were not one and the same. The evidence of Neenan and Parsons is very positive on the point. They both had occasion to examine it closely for the purpose of the pound records, and they say most clearly that the filly released by the defendant from the Ormond pound and that afterwards seen by them at Matawhero were not identicaland, in addition to this, there is the evidence of tlie Natives who impounded the filly in question ■along with the mare, which has been proved beyond all doubt to belong to the plaintiff. Parsons and dther witmesses say that they saw the filly sucking the mare, andi all though- not conclusive, it is some evidence that the filly belonged to the mare. It is clear from, the evidence that the ■witnesses called! for the defence had not the same opportunity and ihad no reason for making so careful an, examination of the filly as the witnesses Neenan and Parsons had, and they are therefore not so competent to speak tas to its identity as plaintiff’s witnesses are. Judgment will therefore be for plaintiff for the value of the fifty, £6, to he reduced to £1 •upon return of the filly within four days, math damages £2, - solicitor’s fee £1 Is, and costs £< 14s 9d.