TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 559, 16 April 1913, Page 5

TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TUESDAY, 15th APRIL, 1913.

Before Mr E. Rawson, S.M

Insobriety.—Three first offenders Were fined 5s aDd costs or in default 24 hours.

Violent Behaviour. Richard Brown, for behaving in a violent and offensive manner in a railway carriage, was mulct in a penalty of 20s and costs 19s.

Alfred Newberry, for getting on a train while in motion at Te Kuiti, Was' fined 10s and costs 7s.

.Uncertificated Boiler.—Messrs Self a*id Cooper, for having in use a boiler for which a certificate was not in force, were mulct in a penalty of 40s and costs. Sergeant Rowle conducted the cases on behalf of the police. CIVIL CASES. ? Judgment went for plaintiff in default in the following undefended cases:—Cotter Bros. v. Pautubi, £3 18s 7d, costs 15s; Ellis and Burnand v. Hicks, £9 Is 3d—23s 6d; Fickling v. Lomas, £3 17s 6d, and costs; Stevens v. Hallmond, £4O 14s 9d—£2 4s; same v. Turner. £l3 5s sd—2ss 6d; Hulloway v. Eearns, £l3 Is 9d—--34s 6d; same v. Kino Ahi Waka, £6 2s—4ls; same v. Pote Pehira, £45 18s sd—£4 17s; Cotter Bros. v. Maui, £l4 3s 4d—£2 14s 65; Ahier y. Bradley, £5 ss—23s 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. l

McCorkindale v. Hallmond.—Order made for the amount of £l4 19s to be paid forthwith. Guardian Trust Co. v. Tuheka, Order made for the amount of £4 16s to be paid forth- j with. Burley v. Hallmond.—Order i made for the payment of £ls 12s 5d ! forthwith. Ellia and Burnand v. j Cribb.—Order made for the payment j of £ls lis 7d forthwith. Cole v. Wilson.—Order made for the payment of £4 13s forthwith. Jury v. Smith. —Order made for payment of 15s per month to liquidate the amount of £6 2s. A DISPUTED COMMISSION. R. Body, for whom Mr Finlay appeared, claimed the sum of £55 from E. Moore. Dalance of commission on the sale of a property at Awakino. Mr Hine appeared for defendant. On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Finlay stated that in the early part of 1911 defendant gave plaintiff particulars of a property, which defendant owned, for the purpose of effecting a sale. Plaintiff agreed to endeavour to sell the property and said defendant offered to pay him £IOO as commission if the sale waß effected by plaintiff. The property was sold to Messrs Alderson and Simpson through plaintiff's agency. In June, 1911, defendant paid £2O on account of commission- and requested plaintiff to wait for the balance for a time. On August 25th, 1911, an amount of £25 was paid by defendant, who again asked that plaintiff would wait for the balance. In January of the present year plaintiff asked for the balance of the amount. At first defendant asked how would a week or two do. Later he said he thought plaintiff had received enough for what he had done, and said he would let it lie at that. Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines stated by defendant. He said he was quite certain as to the arrangement being £IOO for commission. Mr Hine, for the defence, said defendant had paid £8 13s into court to make the amount up to the ordinary rate of commission. They denied the arrangement as to special commission - , - j Defendant in evidence denied entering into the arrangement to pay plaintiff £IOO commission. After considering the evidence his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount paid into court, and wnon-suited plaintiff with respect to the balance of the claim. A DESTROYED TURNIP CROP. A plot of turnips which had been destroyed by straying cattle constituted the basis of an action brought by W.ID. Hattaway against W. Asplin in which plaintiff sought to recover £2 paid to defendant under protest. Mr Hine appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Finlay for defendant. It appears that some cattle among which were two milking cows belonging to the plaintiff had got into a small paddock of turnips owned by de fendant. The cattle were kept by defendant, who demanded damages from the respective owners before he would give up possession. Plaintiff paid £2 under protest in order to get his* cows and now Bought to recover the amount. The facts were admitted in evidence by both parties and J. Daley, a farmer, stated he was called upon by both to assess the damage to the crop and to inspect the fence. He assessed the damage at 16s a head. The fence consisted of three wures on two sides which were fairly secure, but the other sides' were not so good. Mr Hine contended the fence was not up to the legal requirements and " defendant had exceeded his rights m impounding the cattle. Mr Finlay claimed that his client W as entitled to judgment on equity and good conscience. The damage had been done and the amount claimed by defendant would not compensate him for the loss. His Worship said he could not 2 i V e judgment on equity and good conscience, when it was in direct conflict: with a point of law. Defendant had exceeded his oowers in impounding the cattle and had made himself liable to prosecution However it was clear defendant had suffered damage, and while judgmenl had to be given for plaintiff, he thought plaintiff should make some allowance to defendant. Mr Hine intimated that plamtifl would not ask for his own costs, bul would ask for his witnesses. A DISPUTED ACCOUNT.

George Parkes, who was represented by Mr Finlay, claimed from Mre Fitzgibbon the amount oi afor goods supplied and money lent.

Mr Howarth appeared for the da fence.

The plaintiff, in evidence, detailed the occasions upon which he had supplied meat and other goods to defendant. He had also at various times lent her money to change cheques. On one occasion when her credit was stopped at the butcher's he had lent her some money to help to pay the ac count.

In cross-examination by Mr Howarth plaintiff said he had stopped With de fendant, who kept a boarding house at various times. He had cooked for defendant during her absence, and it was understood the work he had done would offset his board. The items in the account were recorded in a book (produced). He had suppliel other people with meat. He had rendered accounts to defendant several times. Robert Gardner stated he had been boarding with defendant Plaintiff was about the house and had done the cooking for a time. Witness knew nothing about plaintiff supplying goods to the house. Cross-examined by Mr Howarth witness said he had heard plaintiff say he was sorry he had taken legal action against defendant, and that the would square it for £25. He was sure the amount mentioned was not £5. He had told defendant what plaintiff said. William Humphrey stated he was boarding with defendant and working for the butcher at Aria during last year. He could not say whether plaintiff had brought meat or other goods to the house. He had seen plaintiff at the house with pack horses. For the defence Mr Howarth said there would be a complete denial of the receipt of the goods or money with the exception of a lamb which was given by plaintiff to defendant as a present. It was admitted that plaintiff had done work about the place, but it had been arranged that no board was to be charged against plaintiff, and he stayed in thß house when he was doing work on the roads. Defendant, in evidence, stated she had received a bill from plaintiff only three days before receiving the summons. She had never received an account from him before, and did not owe him anything. She had never borrowed any money from him, nor received goods from him, with the exception of a lamb which plaintiff had given her. If there was anything owing between them it was the other way about. She had dealt with Holloway for meat during the greater portion of her stay at Aria, and had been under contract to take her meat from him. Subsequently she had dealt with several settlers for meat, but not with plaintiff. His Worship adjourned the further hearing of the case in order to allow defendant to produce books and accounts. A PLOUGHING CONTRACT. A native named Piko Poutahi. re presented by Mr Sharpies, claimed £79 lis on a ploughing contract from another native named Hiri Wetere Kereti, for whom Mr Finlay ap peared. Evidence as to the work was taken this morning, and at the court adjournment the case was still proceeding.