TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 86, 12 June 1908, Page 2

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Wednesday, Junk ioth, 1908.

(Before Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M.)

Judgment went for plaintiff in the following civil cases: —Green and Colebrook v. Murrell, £8 3s lod, and costs, £1 3s 6d; same v. Kati te Kao, £8 6s 3d, and costs, £1 1.3s 6d; Hattaway v Barker, £ls 14s 4d, and costs, £l 15s Cd. Samev. Harris. —Mr Mine appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Broadfoot for defendant. An interest charge, and one or two small items, were disputed by defendant. Plaintiff agreed to a charge of 5 per cent, interest, and credited defendant with the disputed items, and judgment was entered up by consent for £l7 6s Bd, and costs, £5 lOs 6d. Same v. Wallace.—-Mr Hine for plaintiff, and Mr Broadfoot for defendant. Judgment was entered up.by consent for £3 3s sd, and costs, £2* Is. Green and Colebrook v. Tangiwhiti. Judgment was entered up for £2B 5s 8d amount claimed, less 14s interest. Standish v. McCardle and others. Claim £SO for grazing and trespass. Mr Hine appeared for plaintiff. Mr Gillies, who was to represent defendants, could not attend, and Mr McCardle appied for an adjournment. The case was afterwards settled out of Court, defendant undertaking to pay costs.

G. Middleton v. Rangi.— Claim for £7 19s 6d, for damage done by cattle to plaintiff's potato crop at Wairere. Mr Hine appeared for plaintiff and Mr Broadfoot for defendant. The damage was not disputed, but as there were several others who should have been joined as defendants it was decided to join two other Natives as defendants, judgment to go according to an arrangement previously made between the parties, for £6 lOs 6d and costs £9 I2s 6d. A claim of £l 93 against a man named Gibson, in the same case, is to be proceeded with.

Hattaway v. Pee Titi: This was a judgment summons, and defendant was examined on oath by Mr Hine, who appeared for the judgment creditor. Defendant promised to pay ten shillings a week off the debt of £9 I2s iod, and an order was made accordingly, or ten days imprisonment in default. Costs, £2 3s 6d.

A MISSING DEFENDANT. Alexander McLeod was charged with having liquor in a prohibited district, there being reasonable grounds for suspecting the liquor was intended for sale. A second charge of bringing unlabeled liquor into the district was withdrawn. McLeod was also charged with counselling and procuring a boy to steal a fowl at Mangapeehi. The cases were adjourned from last Court da}', when McLeod and his solicitor, Mr Gillies, were in attendance. When the case was called defendant did not appear, and a telegram was received from Mr Gillies asking for a further adjournment.

Constable Mathew stated McLeod was supposed to have left the district, and asked that the informations be dealt with. His Worship decided to hear the charges, the liquor case being taken first.

Constable Baker, of Ongarue, said that when he served McLeod with the summons, he (McLeod) after reading it, said he would admit exposing the liquor, and made a statement in writing to that effect. Afterwards the accused said he did not admit selling liquor, and he (the Constable) agreed. Complaints had been received from Mangapeehi that drunken men had been seen coming out of McLeod's place. When taxed with this McLeod denied he had sold liquor, but said he often had grog at his house and invited his friends along to drink it. The Constable further stated k was impossible to get people to come into Court and give evidence on the case. They talked about the matter but refused to come forward. He instanced a case in which it was stated accused had made a child of three years drunk. When seen about the matter McLeod said the child had got the liquor from the table without his knowledge. The Constable thought the table was too high for the child to reach.

Further evidence was given by a lad of 14 years, as to having been given liquor by McLeod.

The charge of counselling and procuring a boy to steal a fowl was then proceeded with, and the boy detailed the circumstances. After having been given whisky by McLeod, the boy was induced by the accused to go to. Mr Orr's fowlhouse at Mangapeehi,' and take a fowl. When in the act of procuring the bird, Mr Worm, the mill foreman, being attracted by a commotion in the fowl-yard, came and discovered the boy with the fowl. John Richard Arthur Worm, in evidence, supported the boy's statement, and said the lad smelt of whisky, and was confused. Witness saw McLeod near the place when going to Orr's fowlhouse.

In reply to His Worship, Mr Worm stated McLeod had nothing against him so far as he knew. Accused had worked at the mill for two and ahalf years, and prior to that on the line as a bridge builder. The local people knew McLeod " took a drop," but the man was quiet and well liked.

Constable Baker said McLeod was evidently a quiet and reserved man, who was fairly well liked by the men, but women complained of the drinking" at accused's place. McLeod was convicted and fined £ro, and costs, £i 4s on the first charge, and on the second count was lined £5, or in default, one month's imprisonment.