OTOROHANGA S.M. COURT

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 198, 11 October 1909, Page 5

OTOROHANGA S.M. COURT

i I Before Mr F. OH. I.oughnan. S.M. Herbert D«?eley was charged on the in- | formation of the Police that on 20th i September at Otorohanga he did sell | liquor, to wit: whisky, and did deliver | ten bottles of whisky into the Native I area in which there is reasonable ; grounds to suspect it was kept for : sale, and further did receive an order in such prohibited area. Constable I Frascr gave evidence that the defendant brought in ten bottles on the night of 20th September, and in the evening of 21st September he (the j constable) executed a search warrant, and found only one bottle left. A large tangi was being; held at the time and that evening Maoris were under the influence of liquor, and drunk. The [ defendant was in the company of the I Maoris until after midnight, and carrying a bottle about in his pocket. The defendant Deeley gave evidence, and was only able to account for about three bottles of whisky. He was not ; able to state what he had done with the rest. He was convicted on tl.e charge of selling whisky, and fined £25 and 7s cc.-t*. in default three months in Auckland gaol. The other two charges were dismissed. Civil Cases.— C. Cater v. Whiare Kuia: Judgment for plaintiff for ifi 15s I'd and costs £2 3s: A. M. Sheweiry v. H. Isaac: Judgment fur £3 0s fal and coats £2 9s. •Wm. McColl v. F. Deacon: Claim for £1 IS*. Judgment fcr plaintiff with costs. A counter claim for £"> wages w.Tt made by Deacon against McColt. judgment being given fur £5 and costs. A further summons was i*Mfrd against Deacon by MrColl for £5 fur purchase of the goodwill of a hairdressing and tobacconist shop at Otorohanga. After hearing evidence of plaintiff and defendant judgment was given for plaintiff for £*> and costs. Mr Howarth appeared for McColl and Mr fline for Deacon.

Milk Dispute.— In thn rase of B. Corbett v. Wm. Roas: claim for £69 4s. and a counter claim of Wm. Rosa for £99 10s, Mr Howarth appeared for plaintiff and Mr Finlay for defendant. The case was claim l>y plaintiff for his shares of profit of milking, and work done, and also damages against Ross for not supplying tho number rows* agreed upon. The counter claim of Wm. Ross was for Corbett breaking agreement, and damages to his cows. The Magistrate gave judgment for Corbett for £3fi ISs Tr! and costs, tho counter claim being dismissed with costs for the plaintiff Corbet*. Several Jundgment summons cases were adjourned.