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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TUESDAY, 18th MARCH, 1913.

Before Mr E Rawsoa, S.M. Judgment went by default in the following eases:—Warner and Pinney v. McDonald, £ls, costs 30s 6d; Marokopa Milling Co. V. Coburn, £3o—£4 os6d;Kidd v. Coburn, £s—£2 7s; Cotter Bros. v. Aldred and Baker, £1 12s lid—l2s; Cole v. Ngawharau, £4 0s 6d—lss; Coleman v. Dement, £ls—£2 10s 6d; Hotu v. Davy, £7 6s 6d—3ss 6d; Fenton v. Hapua, £7—27s; Ellis and Burnand v. Hill, £9—29s 6d; Verrall and Price v. Hotu £7 Is 6d—32s; same v. McLean, £1 13s 6d—23s. Infected Sheep. —J. W. Lee, for having exposed lice infected sheep for sale at Te Kuiti, was fined £3 and costs. Domestic Infelicity.—Annie Peake, for whom Mr Finlay appeared, applied for a separation order and maintenance from her husband, H. W. Peake. After hearing the evidence of complainant and her son, his Worship granted the order, the defendant to contribute 7s 6d per week towards the maintenance of complainant.

Defence Act Breach. A youth named A. Street was charged with a breach of the Defence Act by failing to deliver a bayonet and scabbard the property of the New Zaeland Government. Sergt.-Major Burgess, who appeared for the department, who said the trouble arose through the defendant having removed from Ngaruawahia without having notified his change of address. He had failed to deliver his equipment to the denartment, but the same had since been received. It was a case of negligence, and he did not press for a heavy penalty. His Worship said that many young fellows were too negligent in connection with the Defence Act, and tbey should receive a lesson. > A fine of 10s, and costs 7s would be inflicted. A Disputed Claim. N. Cohen claimed £27 10s from Whare Bell. Mr Finlay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Sharpies for defendant. The plaintiff stated he had sold a diamond ring to defendant in 1910, and had received payment for the same. In 1911 plaintiff sold another diamond ring to defendant for £25, and in consideration of defendant purchasing the ring agreed to replace a stone in the ring previously sold to defendant gratis. He also sold an alarm watch to defendant for £2 10s. The ring was delivered to defendant by registered post. Mr Sharpies, for the defence, stated defendant admitted owing £3 10s to plaintiff for replacing a stone in the ring which defendant had originally purchased from plaintiff, and this amount had been paid into court. The defendant denied having bought an alarm watch from plaintiff, and denied having agreed to purchase the diamond ring. The ring had been sent to defendant, but he had offered to return it to plaintiff who, had refused to take it. Evidence was given in support of defendant's case by himself and his wiEe - .-- j His Worship, in giving judgment, said he was not satisfied plaintiff had proved his case. The onus of proof rested with the plaintiff, and the defence was consistent. The fact of the defendant being a native and being unable to write would account for him thinking that it was sufficient to tender the ring to plaintiff when he met him. It wa<* not for the bench to express an opinion as to the actions of either one or the other, but on the evidence before him he could not hold that the case had been proved. Plain-

tiff would be non-suited. Commission Dispute.—Messrs Mackay and Jones claimed £B3 from M. H. Wilton, commission on an exchange of land which had been effected by the firm. Mr Fithzerbert appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Mr Howarth for defendant. The transaction of the business was admitted ,the only matter in dispute being the amount of commission to be paid by defendant, who claimed the arrangement entered into was that commission should only be paid by him on the amount of money which passed. This amounted to £49 15s 6d. The plaintiffs held the agreement was that commission was to be paid on the equity which made the amount as claimed. After hearing the evidence of Mr Mackay and Mr Wilton, judgment was given for £49 15a 6d, with costs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/KCC19130319.2.20

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 551, 19 March 1913, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
696

TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT. King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 551, 19 March 1913, Page 5

TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT. King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 551, 19 March 1913, Page 5

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