MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 August 1923, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY, AUG. Kith

(Before Win Meldrutn, Esq., S.M.)

FOUND DRUNK

A first offender found drunk the pro vions (lav was convicted and fined ss. PURE FOODS ACT.

F. Varney (Inspector under Bure Foods Act) v. .f. A. Kidd, a charge oi selling milk, not up to the proper standard, and containing 3.6 of water ( Mr Wells for defendant formally pleaded not guilty. F. Varney, an officer under the Pure Foods Act, purchased a pint of mills from the defendant's sun. The analyst’s report showed 8.4 of butter fat instead of the minimum of 8.5, and to contain 3.6 of water. The water may have beet! added by carelessness in the washing of the tins. Defendant sworn, said he could notgive inn- explanation as' io the contents of water, except that a small Hiiiutity was left in the cans when being washed out. Did not pul the 'taler in, and could not account tor it. His \\ iirsliip said the shortage ot lal was only nominal and on that charge a fine of .Cl and costs 7s would he inflected. On the charge of added water, this was more serious. It was carelessness if nil accident. A fine ol £2 and costs Hs ltd was inflicted. LICENSING ACT. A resident was charged with being in the All Nations Hotel, Rimu, during prohibited hours. Fined Cl Rttil costs 7s. A resident found on Dunedin Hotel after hours was fined 20s and costs 7s. DEBT CASES. W. .leffries and Co. v. .1. R. Bates, claim TIL 15s 2d. .Judgment for plaintiff with costs 365. John Ala no ra (Air Alurdoch) v. John Stankov, claim £4. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 21s Gd. J. Peake (M.r Wells) v. R. F. Cochrane (Mr Elcock) application for order of ejectment from tenement. Order made for possession by 30th August.

.MARSHALL V. BAIRD. Air Murdoch for plaintiff, -Mr Patterson for defendant. - His Worship gave his judgment in this case referret! buck for damages as a result of the finding of Justice Adams in the Supreme Court appeal ease. 11 is Worship said the point he had to decide was the value of the bull destroyed. 'The plaintiff bad given evidence that lie had purchased it for 626 ss, and that ii cost 620 to land, therefore its value as a yearling was 6-16 ss. lie lined it for Ihree years when tin- accident occurred. His claim was for 6105. Plaintiff had called Thomson, a farmer, udio had valued it at 63)0. For the defendant 1 loulislon. a funner and member of the Laud Board hud valued the hull at .626 ss. what il lost as a yearling, plus costs of bringing it over. Houston, a stock auctioneer, had valued ii at Horn £lo to .620, stating that after three years service bulls that cost. 6-10 were not worth more than about 6i->. Ihe plaintiff had bought the bull as a yearling, and used it lor three years, and ill the ordinary course ot things would have bail to get a new bull very soon. Probably the estimate of Air Houston was under the value. He proposed to take the value put on by Mr Houliston that the hull when killed was of the same value as when a yearling, as the nearest estimate. Taking the cost at 626 os ho would allow 610 tor expenses in bringing it to (lie ( oast, ami would find 636 5s as a lair value oi the bull. Judgment would be given for 636 OS. with costs to he arranged .between tlie counsel lor Loth parties. DEFENCE ACT.

A charge of failure to at tom! parade was adjourned till next sitting owing In ihe luni-attendance ol the Dcleme Officer. AN AFFILIATION’ CASK.

All affiliation ease was heard in which Mi- Mimlnrh a open red for plaintiff and the defendant did not appear. Order made for payment of 615 Ins Bd, and ,10s per week, uith costs .63 13s.