Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

S.M. COURT.

♦—j- , TE KUITI—THURSDAY. (Before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M.) Williams and Bruce (Mr Finlay) v. Hartigan. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Green and Colebrook (Mr Hine) v. Redmond. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Dr Zobel (Mr Sharpies) v. John Taylor. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Mcßae v. Hartigan. Judgment by default. Shaw v. Mclntyre. Judgment by default. Rouse (Mr Sharpies) v. Iwa. Case dismissed. Police v. J. Chocqueel (Mr Finlay). Chocqueel was charged with sending a case of beer into Te Kuiti the same not being properly labelled. The defendant stated that he had labelled the case properly before consigning it and that the label must have been torn off during transit.

His Worship stated that he was satisfied that the ca-ie had been properly labelled and that through misadventure the label had been torn off. He dismissed the case, but advised the defendant to in future label his cases more securely. Williams (Mr Sharpies) v. Rewatu (Mr Northcroft). Plaintiff, a farmer at Fio Pio, occupied land adjoining defendant, and alleged that 3 or 4 years ago cattle of his strayed on defendant's land, there being, at that time, no boundary fence. When the fence was erected, about March, 1908, he mustered his cattle and found 17 short. At the Te Kuiti slock sale in October, 1909, plain iff discovered three steers, bearing his earmark, in a pen of cattle which had just been offered for saje by Rewalu, and knocked down at five guineas per head. Rewatu disputed the ownership, as the steers bore his earmarks and brands. Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Messrs McLymont and Houghton, in whose yard the earmarking by the plaintiff had been done, and who recognised the animals in the saleyard. The defence was a total denial that the animals were ever owned by the plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £ls 15s and costs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/KCC19100521.2.5

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 261, 21 May 1910, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
316

S.M. COURT. King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 261, 21 May 1910, Page 2

S.M. COURT. King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 261, 21 May 1910, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert