TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 518, 16 November 1912, Page 5

TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY, 14th NOVEMBER. Before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M. Judgment went by default in the following cases: —Hattaway v. Campbell, £5 6s 3d, costs 39s 6d; Lorigan v. Symes, £3o—£2 14s; Graham v. Coffin, 10s 6d; Waitomo County Council v. Hetet, £5 18s lOd—2ss 6d; Ellis and Burnand v. Cribb, £l2 10s Id—33s 6d; Corban and Co. v. Hallmond, £lO lis 7d—4ss 6d; Holloway v. O'Sullivan, £2O 18s lOd— £S 7s; Guardian Trust Co. v. Roe, £6 8s 4d—--24s 6d same v. O'Sullivan, £6 14s 6d —37s 6d; Zdbel v. Taylor, £6 18s—--265; Burley v. Hallmond, £ll fis lid —4ss 6d; Nicholls v. Pepi, £2 15s 4d—lßs 6d; Fickling v. Carnell, £G 16s 3d—23s 6d. Judgment Summons. —Hattaway v. McGarvie, £lO 17s. Order made for immediate payment, in default lu days' imprisonment. MISSING LIQUOR NOTICE. Cook and Co., for whom Mr Finlay appeared, pleaded guilty to sending liquor into the district without proper notice having been sent to the clerk of the court. Mr Finlay explained that the clerk had inadvertently omitted to send th 9 notice. A fine of £2 and costs was inflicted. BAD POTATOES. R. J. Dooley was charged with having sold two sacks of unwholesome potatoes to a Maori. Mr Howarth appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. On a further charge of giving a receipt for £2 without affixing a stamp thereto, a plea of guilty was entered, but Mr Howarth said he would like to have the circumstances explained. Both charges arose out of the one sale. Constable Mathew said a Maori complained to him about some potatoes bo had bought from defendant. He had seen the potatoes on the railwayplatform, and moisture from one of the sacks was soaking on to the platform. He saw defendant about the matter, and subsequently defendant took the sacks away. The Maori showed witness a receipt for payment for the potatoes for £2, and witness noticed the receipt was unstamped. Defendant, in evidence, stated that two Maoris came and bought two sacks of potatoes to be sent to Mangapehi. They had a look at the sacks before buying. The potatoes were just as he had received them from the merchant in Auckland, and were sold at the ordinary price. The potatoes were not a bad line, but the sacks in question had doubtless been somewhat knocked about in handling, and the soft ones had got bruised and squashed. As to the receipt the potatoes were sold to two Maoris, a sack each, and when a receipt was asked for, being in a hurry, he merely noted on a billhead the payment of the money, and gave it to one of the Maoris. W. Powell, who carted the potatoes to the station, said there was apparently nothing wrong with the potatoes when he delivered them to the station. Afterwards he saw the potatoes emptied out, and there were a few bad ones among them, but not more than the average. His Worship, in giving judgment, said it was no excuse for a shopkeeper to plead ignorance. Even in the case of tinned milk, which had gone bad, the seller was liable to conviction. The responsibility was on the seller to sell only goods which were fit for human food. Defendant was fined £2 and costs 7s, on each charge. TE MAPARA ASSAULT CASE. Cross charges of assault were preferred against each other by Te Mapara setlers named Garmson and King. Mr Hine appeared for Garm son and Mr Finlay for King. The facts as stated by Mr Hine, on behalf of his client, were that Garmson in company with a neighbour named Townsend, were driving in a dray along the road when they met King, who was riding. The latter spoke to Garmson about a fencing notice, and an altercation ensued which culminated in King inviting Garmson to get down and fight. The invitation was refused, and King dismounted from his horse and attempted to get into the dray. Garmson pushed him off and King then seized the horses' reins and got up on the shafts of the day. Garmson then struck King with the handlo of the whip on the head and knocked King off the dray. The latter picked up a piece of manuka and struck Garmson on the hand and leg. Counsel's statement was supported by the evidence of Garm3on and Townsend. The latter, in reply to Mr Finlay, said that the combatants had probably come out about square in the encounter. His Worship said there was evidently not much of a balance either way, but King was evidently the aggressor, and would be ordered to pay the costs. DISPUTED HORSE DEAL. John Coombridge, for whom Mr Sharpies appeared, claimed the return of a horse, valued at £5, and £5 damages for detention, less 7s 6d owing by plaintiff to defendant, Arthur Tyler, represented by Mr Hine. The case for the plaintiff, as stated by Mr Sharpies, was thatthe had been purchased by his client from defendant, and subsequently lent to defendant, who refused to return it. Evidence was given by plaintiff and his son in support of his case,while defendant and P. Bauer gave evidence for the defence, which was to the effect that the horse was exchanged for a gun. Defendant found the gun unsuitable and returned it, taking back the horse. After considering the evidence, his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the return of the horse or £5, together with £3 damages for detention, less 7s 6d owing by°plaintiff to defendant, total £7 12s 6d and costs. Rose v. Brett. —Action for possession of a tenement. Mr Watts appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Swarbrick for the defence. Mr Swarbrick raised the point that the action was

wrongfully laid in the Te Kuiti court. The action should have been taken in the Kawhia court, as being the nearest to the cause. Counsel quoted authorities in support of the claim that in cases of thia description action had to be taken in the nearest court. Mr .Watts replied on behalf of hia client. His Worship upheld the point raised by Mr Swarbrick, and the case was struck out.