PAEROA S.M. COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4415, 17 May 1922, Page 2

PAEROA S.M. COURT.

MONDAY’S CASES. • Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., conducted the'usual monthly sitting of the Paeroa, Magistrate’s Court on Monday. SUPPORT OF BROTHER. William Burnell, aged 21 (Mr Porritt), was called upon to show cause why he should not contribute towards the cost of ‘his brother’s upkeep in the Wereroa Industrial School. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that he had no regular employment. He gave part of what money, he earned to his father for board and the balance for clothing. An order for 7s 6d per week was made. WITHOUT LIGHTS. Louis Shortt, of Auckland, was Convicted and ordered to pay 7s 6d costs on a charge of driving a car without lights after dusk. Mr J. F. Montague explained thalt his client’s lamps went out near the Paeroa racecourse on the way from Thames. WRONGFULLY ON RACECOURSE. Alexander Wallace Copley was prosecuted for wrongfully appearing on the Para.w,ai racecourse. Senr.Sergcant O'Grady prosecuted for the Police. —Fined £2. with 12s costs. FIREARMS ACT. Victor Sherson was prosecuted against by the Police for being in possession of a revolver, the sam'e not being registered. Senior-Sergeant O’Grady said the man had the revolver in his pocket when visiting a house, and one chamber was loaded. The revolver had never been registered.. He would ask for, forfeiture of the revolver and ammunition. Mr Porritt appeared for the accused, stating that the revolver belonged to a deceased brother, and was handed over to accused with sundry other effects. The fact of his carrying the firearm in bishvercoat pocket was proof that he did not know the? law on the matter. Accused had only got possession of; the firearm recently.

His Worship said it was a very serious* thing to have an unregistered flrearip ; it was more serious to carry the weapon about; it was more serious still to have it loaded. —Fined £li, with costs 7s, and ordered to forfeit the weapon. DEFENCE ACT CASES, Several prosecutions .for failure to attend military parades were dealt with, James Henry Curtiss, Paeroa Senior Cadets, appeared, to answer a charge of being absent from parades. Defendant said that for health reasons be could not appear in “shorts,” but the order was for uniform. —Convicted and ordered to pay costs', 9s. Frank Gordon was proceeded against on a similar charge. His Worship said ’he-did not dike defendant’s conduct.. It was his second offence, and he would be fined £5, with 9s costs in default 14 days’ imprisonment.

Douglas Hartly Lowry, for failing to attend parade, was fined £1 and 9s costs.

Lewis Claude Shaw claimed that his work as a taxi-driver prevented his attendance, but he also was mulcted in a fine of; £1 and costs 9s. Reginald Thomas Shaw was also ordered to contribute 295, beipg £1 fine and 9s costs. RESERVED JUDGMENT. Tn the case of Whitten v. Wells, claim for loss of a bull, wherein His Worhsip reserved his decision from the Jast court day, Mr Walter Wight, stock-breeder, was called by Mr J. L. Hanna to give expert opinion as to the. value of a. grade Jersey bull, three years old, for stud purposes. He said such an animal was worth f;rom £1 up to £5, unless specially bred. The time of the season was also a factor. He had not seen the bull in question. His Worship said the plaintiff had let the bull to defendant for service purposes. There was an obligation on the part of the person hiring an animal to take ordinary p. ecautions. The only point to decide was the value of the bull at last November. An expert stock auctioneer had given the opinion that from £3 to £4 was the most tha£! could be got, assuming that someone wanted to buy such a bull. - Whitten did not want to sell the bull on an unfavourable marketThe plaintiff would be awarded £4 7s 6d and costs against defendant. ACTION FOR £lOl-25.. In. the above case Hazare Singh sued N. Si. Davidson for a sum of £lO2 2s, on account .of clearing land of rushes, etc. Mr E. W. Porritt, for plaintiff, said that an area of eleven acres was included in the contract by plaintiff, but which defendant stated he had not. agreed to include. Hazare Singh 1 , Hindoo contracto?, through an interpreter, gave evidence as to the prices per acre, >vhich were not disputed. He disagreed about the area, claiming to have cleared the whole block pointed out in the first instance

N. S. Davidson, defendant, conducted his own case, and cross-examined Singh.

His Worship, after hearing lengthy evidence, allowed £2 per acre for the lar.d upon which this: price was agreed ; he would award £3 per acre in respect to the eleven acres in dispute. Both, parties, owing to the language difficulty, might easily be under an honest .misapprehension about the ■supp.osed agreement, which was verbal! £2 would be allowed for mi’k supplied to plaintiff. The amount of the judgment was for £BB, less credits, making £62 16s Bd. Costs amounted to £7 2s. His Worship said there appeared to have been a large element of mistake between the parties.