TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 599, 3 September 1913, Page 5

TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TUESDAY. 2nd SEPT., 1913.

Before Mr E. Rawson, S.M

Unlabeled Liquor. —E. Hynes, charged with delivering an unlabeled package of liquor within a proclaimed area, pleaded guilty. Sergeant Rowell stated the defendant was observed coming from the railway station with the package. No notification had been received of the liquor having been supplied. In answer to His Worship, the sergeant said he did not suggest the liquor was for sale. Defendant said he had been to Hamilton and brought a couple of bottles back with him. He did not know by doing so he was committing a breach. His Worship said the legislature had made it a serious offence, and the public should know by now what steps had to ba taken in bringing in liquor. Ifcr'endant would be fined 40s and

costs. C. J. Ellfson was charged with giving an order for a case of whisky without furnishing his proper name and address. Defendant pleaded guilty and explained that he had written the letter for a friend who had asked him to do so without any idea of committing a breach of the Act. His Worship said he would like to hear the evidence of defendant and the person for whom the liquor was intended. Sergeant Rowell said he had seen the man for whom the liquor was intended and he bore out defendant's statement. His Worshiu said he was prepared to believe defendant's explanation, but pointed out that these breaches were too common. A fine of 40s and costs was inflicted. His Worship said he would have to substantially increase the penalties for breaches of this description in future. Incomplete Notification.—G. Bodley, for whom Mr Sharpies appeared, pleaded guilty to having furnished an incorrjDlete notification of a liquor order/ A fine of 20s and cos Is was

inflicted. Breaking Piohibition. James Smith, who had been dealt with last court day was charged with having been drunk and with breaking his prohibition order. Accused pleaded guilty to all charges. He asked for a chance to get out oC town and promised to keep sober. Sergeant Rowel] said the town life was~fatal to accused's good resolu- j tions. He was a hard working man j and would have a chance of working I as soon as the road works com- j menced. He questioned if sending | accused to Pakatoa would do any good. His Worship said it was apparently of little use giving accused a chance. | Fines amounting to £4 10s and costs 28s were inflicted on the four charges, with the alternative of terms of imprisonment amounting to a month. His Worship said if accused's employer eared to pay the fine and take care of the man he might be kept out of gaol, but probably a month's confinement would do him good. Irregular Order. Alfred James j Kinnaid pleaded guilty to charges of having given orders for liquor without j giving the proper name and address of j the person ordering same. Defendant j in explanation said he was manager of J the Trading Company and had been j requested by the brakesroan to write ; an order for a bottle of whisky and I one of Bchnapns for a man in the bush. ! Ee had signed the man's name being ; under the impression that by signing- ! his own he would be creating a breach of the Act, The other case was of a similar nature. His Worship pointed out that if defendant had signed his own name it would have been all right. The name of the person receiving the liquor and the name of the person ordering had to be furnished. His Worship •further pointed out that it wa3 time the peoole of the district understood the law in this respect. In future heavier fine 3 would be inflicted and people would then perhaps take the trouble to find out the law and comply with it. A fine of 40s and costs on j each charge wuold be inflicted. j CIVIL CASES. I Judgment went by default, with costs, in the following undefended caHes:—Stevens v. Riley £ls 16s 2d, Clapham v. Reynolds £37 0s 4d, same V Elliott £4 10?, Waitomo County ; Council v. Anderson £22 19s lid. j Cowper v. Peha Whareana £3 17s, McDonald v. Poihaerd £3 2a lid, Tapp v. Guilford £6 10s, Matthew v. Dunn Bros. £6 9s, same v. Raynsr £8 17s 4d same v. Lomas 7s 6d, McColl v. Br'unton £4 5s 7d, Gresham v. Mahoney £1 18s lOd, Tassel v. Reid £1 10s Hd, same v. Ngawharau te Muro £5 14s 7d. Hodgson v. Taitoka *1 ?s <3d, Clapham v. McClenaghan £3, Nicholis v. Ngawharau £2 16s 6d, same v. Paki Titi £23 8s 3d same v. Tame Huirau £2 lis Id, Otto v Goodfellow £4 15s, Cotter Bros v. Rule £3 Is 6d, Ohlaen v. O'Connor £5.. Matthew v. Valder £l2, Palmer v. Rountree £3. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. In the judgment summons case, Tenton v. Hapua, the judgment debtor was ordered to pay the amount £9 Is forthwith or in default 10 days imprisonment, warrant to be suspended for one week. A DISPUTED PLAN. M W Forstyh, for whom Mr Hiiie appeared, claimed the sum of £l2 10s from W A. Scott for plans of a house prepared for defendant. Mr Finlay appeared for defendant. The plaintiff's case was that he had prepared plans and specifications ? or a house which defendant projected erecting at Otorohanga He baa B Sd for payment to defendant on several occasions and the liability had never been disclaimed. The defence set up was to the effect that defendant had never given Suctions to have the plans prepared Defendant in evidence stated

he bad discussed the matter of erecting the bouse with plaintiff and said if he could get the necessary amount from the Building Society he would have the plans prepared and the house erected.

After hearing the evidence of both parties his Worship non-suited the plaintiff with costs.

A TANGITU CASE,

John Thomas Dixon claimed from William Henry Collett the 3um of £lo for boarding and lodging four children of defendant. Mr Bins appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sharpies for defendant.

The plaintiff's story was to the effect that during the time Mrs Collett was in the hospital tha children were boarded a?id lodged by plaintiff. Defendant and his wife gave evidence to the effect th.it the children were taken in a neighbourly way by Mrs Dixon and defendant had provided their food, and bedding the whole time they w.°re with plaintiff. His Worship said he was not satisfied that plaintiff had proved his case and he would be non-suited with costs. IMPOUNDING CLAIM.

His Worship delivered judgment in the case of J. W. Or? against S. Warren, which was heard last court day. After reviewing the evidence and the various technical points raised at length, his Worship held the iaw had not been complied with in which case the animals were not impounded though in fact placed in the pound. Complainant was therefore entitled to recover the amounts for driving fees, poundage and sustenance, but not the £2 illegally demanded by the poundkeeper for" the notice. He \va3 also entitled to £2 for driving the ca'ctie back and the railage charges,making a total of £-3 10s od. His Worship was not satisfied the animals had suffered any depreciation in value end nothing would be allowed in that respact. Cost 3 would be allowed to the amount

of £5 Os 4d. A DISPUTED COMMISSION

J. R.'Graham claimed from J. Lawson the sum of £2 15s commission on the sale of a section in Te Kaiti. Mr Hnwarth appeared fur plaintiff and Mr Sharpies for defendant. The case for the plaintiff as disclosed by evidence was that plaintiff had sold a section for defendant and claimed the amount as stated for commission.

Evidence was given by G. Arrowsmith, to whom the section was sold to the effect that Mr Graham had brought the section under his notice and the bargain hsd been concluded between himself and defendant. The defence was that instructions had been given by defendant to plaintiff to sell the section by auction on a certain date after it had been advertised twice.

His Worship reserved judgment till this morning to consider a technical point raised by Mr Sharpies. After reviewing the evidence his Worship decided to non-suit the plaintiff with costs.