POLICE COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4500, 6 December 1922, Page 3

POLICE COURT.

MONDAY. DECEMBER 4. 1922. (Before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M.) CATTLE TICK. At the local Police Court on Monday MW Riritoto Mataia, of Paeroa, was Charged with exposing fpr sale 29 head of cattle at the Farmers’ Auctioneering Co.’s saleyards at Coromandel, one of the beasts being infected with cattle tick, contrary to section 17 of the Stock Act, 1908. Mr Porritt appeared [or Mrs Mataia and explained that the property was at Coromandel in charge of a manager, and the defendant, although responsible, had not seep the cattle and was not aware that one beast was infected. J. P. Findlay, Inspector of Stock, >n his evidence said that one beast was slightly infected with tick at the time of the sale, but defendant had since taken steps to have the cattle effectively dipped. He said he would not press for a heavy penalty, but hL Department viewed a breach of the regulations as a very serious matter, and the case had been laid as a warn ing tb others. Defendant was convicted and fined £l, and costs, 12s‘. BREACHES OF STAMP ACT. Albert F. Billington, of Paeroa was Charged with committing two breaches of the Stamp Duties Act, 1908, in that in August and September he wrote and signed receipts for £6 each to G. Graves, without same being stamped, as required by the regulations, with a twopenny stamp. Mr Hanna appeared for the defendant, and admitted the breaches of the Act, but pleaded that there was no intention to defraud. The penny stamps had been used on the receipts in question without thinking. It was not likely that a man was going to deliberately defraud the Government of twopence and run the risk of sei ous trouble. His Worship said that offences against the revenue of the country could only be regarded as a very serious matter, In this instance he would give the defendant the benefit of the breaches as being an oversight and record a conviction and fine of £2 oh each charge, plus costs 14s.

CLAIM FOR POSSESSIONMrs Martha D. Shaw (Mr O’Neill) of Matata, claimed possession of! 18 acres in Block XVI of the Waihou survey District and the dwelling thereon from W. D. Keys (Mr Montague). Formal evidence was was given by the plaintiff’s! agent as to having interviewed the defendant on several occasions. Mrs Shaw in her evidence said ■she required, the house, for .the Immediate use of her son, who was a returned •soldier. For the defence .Mr Montague submitted that defendant had looked after the property, and the rent had been paid up to date. He also drew His Worship’s attention to the fact that the defendant was a returned soldier, and undorjhe existing regulations and amendments! of the Housing Act. defendant could not be turned out of the property. His Worship considered the point raised, and agreed that the position was as. stated by Mr Montague, and therefore no order for possession could be made. Costs amounting to £4 Ils were allowed nlaintiff. FAMILY MAN’S TROUBLES. Hutchinson Bros., of Auckland, claimed; judgment against Paul C. Gallagher, of Paeroa, for the sum of £l6 Is 8d for goods supplied. Callaghler, who was not represented by counsel, said lie was a- married man with Ave little children, and he had for some time experienced a great deal of sickness and he.avy expenses in his family. His weekly earnings were barely sufficient to maintain them, and he was simply -not in a position at the present time to make any offer to liquidate the debt. His Worship said that in view ef the circumstances' he would not make an order against him. "HARDLY ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.” William George , Hill, of Paeroa, against whom the Public Trustee asked for judgment, for the sum ofl £4 10s sd, said he was a linesman with the Power Board, and had to maintain himself whilst working for the board at Kopuarahi, where he camped, and also his wife, child, and mother-in-law in Paeroa. He was able to make good wages during the fine weather, but he did not get paid when it was wet. He had a very hard row to hoe to keep things going, and he was not in a position to make an offer to reduce the debt at present. His Worship took a lenient view of the case and directed that no order should be made under the circumstances'.