TE KUITI S.M. GOURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 476, 22 June 1912, Page 5

TE KUITI S.M. GOURT.

THURSDAY, 20th JUNE, 1912. Before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M. Liquor Breaches.—The number of offenders against the Licensing Act with respect to notifying the clerk of the court as to sending liquor into the district was rather lesi than usual. Fuur defendants were fined amounts ranging from Is to 5s and costs. A Maori named Ruru n Ruruana was charged with having aided and abetted in procuring whisky, and pleaded guilty. Constable Mathew said the ' facxs were that Constable Capp, in consequence of various complaints, had been derailed for special duty on the railway. At Otorohanga he noticed defendant getting off the train with a bottle of whisky. The constable followed and defendant threw away the whisky. When asked where he had obtained the liquor Ruru refused to give any information. His Worship inflicted a fine of 10s and costs, £2 altogether. Watered Milk. —W. A. Scott was charged with selling milk containing more than the allowable amount of water. Inspector Bennett, of the Public Health Department, gave evidence as to taking the samples of milk, and sending them to the 'Government analyist at Auckland. The samples were put in the bottles by F. Jones who was driving the milk cart. They were taken from the serving can. Alfred James Parker, Government analyist, gave evidence that the samples' contained 15 per cent, of water.

The defendant explained that the milk was the night's milking, and had been left out on the stand the previous night. In the morning he noticed that water had got into tne milk, but could not afford to throw it away as he would not have had sufficient for his customers. It bad rained heavily during the night and probably that was the cause of the milk becoming watered. Hiß Worship said it was a serious offence to adulterate milk for human consumption. ' The offender was liable to a heavy fine or three months' imprisonment for a wilful reat:h of the Act. He inflicted a fine of £4 and coats £6 4s 6d.

P. Jones, who was working for the previous defendant, pleaded guilty to supplying the milk, and was fined Is and costs 9s, his Worship remarking that the fine should be paid by Scott. CIVIL CASES.

Judgment went by default in the following cases:—Dr Zobel, v E. C. Stanley, £24 7s 6d, and costs £4 15s; Stevens v. Searancke, £2 3s 2d, costs 7s 6d: same v. Le Mon, £6 6s sd, costs £2 2s 6d; same v. Tapara, £6, costs 26s 6d; Green and Colebrook v. Tassell, £3 7a 4d, costs ss; Hine v. Te Akau. £2O Is, costs 19s 6d; Porster v. Ngahieri, £3, costs 18s 6d: Reardon and Sons v. McLean, £Bl 6s 8d costs 39s 6d; Hattaway v. Hemara, £ll 5s sd, costs £2 lis; Nicholla v. Hetet, £l3 4s Bd, costs. 335; same v. Searancke, £22 Is lid, costs £2 16s 6d. Young v. Corrigan: Judgment for possession and amount claimed, £2 ss, costs 31s. Atkinson v. Brathwaite.—This was a case which was held over from last sitting, his Worship wishing- to have the assurance of the landlord, Mr H., Matthew, that he (Mr Matthew) had no objection to the plaintiff selling the fowl house to defendant. Mr Matthew stated he understood he had purchased the fowl house along with wire netting, when Mr Atkinson was leaving. There may have been a misunderstanding I on the part of Mr Atkinson, but he (witpess) considered he was making an allowance for the house and wire. The wire alone wa« not worth the amount of allowance. His Worship said in view of Mr Matthew's evidence he could not give judgment for the full amount claimed. Judgment would be given for 15s without costs. Gadsby v. Hoban. —Claim £SB 10s for a horse owned by plaintiff which had not been returned by defendant, and damages for loss in value and detention. The horse had been returned subsequent to action being taken, and the claim was reduced to £25 damages. Mr Pinlay appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sharpies for defendant. The circumstances of the case as disclosed in evidence were that an agreement was entered into between the parties whereby defendant was to break in the horses, and have the use of them for a time to repay him for his trouble. Plaintiff alleged that the horses baa been overworked and neglected, and had been considerably depreciated in value. There had been no time specified for the return of the horses, and when be had called upon defendant to return the animals, only one had been returned. When it was returned to plaintiff in March it was lame and in low condition. The other horse had been kept by defendant until the end of Anrii, and, when returned, was also in poor condition. The horses had been taken by defendant in October.

Defendant stated that the agreement was that the horses were to be kept hy him until the end of April. The first had been returned to plaintiff at considerable inconvenience to defendant, and the second had been kept until the end of April. Both horses had been broken in and were in good working condition. They had not been neglected. After hearing evidence at length his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £ls and costs.