Kawhia S.M. Court.

Kawhia Settler and Raglan Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 359, 1 May 1908, Page 2

Kawhia S.M. Court.

WEDNESDAY, APBiL 23 b, [Before Mr Cutten, S.M ] DEBTW. H. Berg r, H. (be, £2 10 g o-3g s>ld and delivered. V-.. 1 c< Li amount, with £1 2s costa, JUDGMENT SUMMONS Ed, A. F. Wilanu v E. Nd m —Grief for amonn, £3 7? 101, forthwith, 09 four days impriaoamec? in Auckland B’> -I-

W. M. Newton v. D Coe, order fig amount for bwith, or four day’s imprisonment in Auckland gaol. Same v. W. Coe.—Order lor amount, £7 10s lid, forthwith, or 7 days imprisonment in Auckland gaoL

WHAT PRICE POTATOES. Pouwbaretapu v. T. B. Soott.This case was heard at the Te Awamutu Court about five years ago, the claim being for 265, the value cf some potatoes, for which a verdict was given for Pouwbaretapu. Scott was not present, being unable to attend owing to havings cut foot. A doctor’s certificate to 'bat effect waa and Mr Northcroft entered up that a re-bearing would be allowed if requested. The matter remained at that until last court, wben a notice having been served on Soott to pay the amount, an application for re-bearing was made and granted. Wben the case was called on both parties acted as their own lawyers, Mr E. Falwasser being interpreter. Pouwbaretapu, 'worn, stated that the claim was 26s for taking throe sacks of potatoes out of his boose, which be did not give Scott authority to do. He Rummoued for payment of the potatoes, which were taken in September, 1903. He had two houses, and when he came to one the potatoes had been removed, and were standing outside. The house was locked, and the potatoes had been taken through the window, He then enquired who had removed them, but did not find out then, but later on learned they bad been removed by Dave Galvan and Jim Falwasser. Fak wasser was asked by witness who owned the potatoes, and he replied “Tom Soott,” who had instructed that they be taken away. He sent Soott a bill for payment of the potatoes (a copy of which was produced.) To the S.M.—Scott saw him some time afterwards and told witness that bis son bad sold him the potatoes. That was after the judgment in Te Awamutu.

James Fal wasser, swore to having removed the potatoes at Scott’s orders. T. B. Scott, stated that he bought the potatoes off eon, and instructed Galvan to cart them. The door of the where was open, but a chain and lock were attached to it. He paid 2s per sack for the potatoes which were only pig potatoes. Galvan was present when he paid for them. The boy was waiting for the money when the potatoes were delivered. To Pon wharelapu—He did not know who owned the potatoes when the boy soldphem to witness. It was a regular thing that the boys got the small potatoes, and he had bought many sacks before. David Galvin remembered Scott baying the potatoes from the boy who received 6s for them. To Pon wharetapa—John sold the potatoes. To the S.M.—There was nothing carious about the sale. The money was paid as soon as the potatoes were delivered to Scott. In giving judgment, Mr Cutten said that he had not nothing to do with the re-hearing, so the matter came before him as a claim. The oomplainant must prove his claim, bat in this QSM he bad failed to do so, consequently a verdict would be giyen for defendant with coats £4 3s.