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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

HELENSVILLE S.M. COURT

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28

(Before Mr E. H. Page, S.M.)

CIVIL CASES

Judgment was given (with costs) for the plaintiff in the following cases :

Dr. Meinhol'd v M. Stainch, £3 3s ; same v Radovich, £3 13s 6d ; Commissioner of Taxes v Deacon, £5 10s ; same vJ. M. Laing, £2 14s ; Masters v Tucker Rice, £6 11s 7d; G. Burnett vC. Diraka, £7 ; Anderson v Wickham, £1 9s 8d ; Stewart v Anaru Waipo, £33 15s ; C. Diraka vF. Wellen, £6.

DAMAGE TO HORSE AND TRAP

Mr E. Leydon of Kaukapakapa sued Mr Winkleman of Auckland for £29 2s damages, for injuries done to horse, trap and harness hired to him in August; Mr E. T. Field appeared for Leydon, and Mr Herdman (instructed by Jackson and Russell) for Mr Winkleman. The evidence showed that plaintiff hired the turn-out in question to defendant who said that though he himself couldn't drive, his friend, Mr Roche, who was with him, was a good man with horses. On the way out the horse ran or walked into a hedge and* stopped there till Mr Leydon told it to go on. The defendant and his friend reached their destination safely, unharnessed the horse, and inspected defendant's farm. They then harnessed up. Defendant went to open the gate and Roche immediately shook the reins and called to the horse ; he standing on the ground in a line with the step and intending to drive from the ground. The horse forthwith bolted, smashed the trap and harness, and was so much injured that it had to be shot. A good deal of evidence led to show that the horse was gentle and tractable and had often been ridded and driven by a woman. Mr Hunter was called as an expert driver, and stated that a man believing a horse was in a flighty humour and endeavouring to drive it from the ground, as was done in the present, case, would be a fool, and so he would also be if he, under similar circumstances, started before the gate was open, Mr Herdmann, for the defence, contended that negligence could not be presumed and had not been proved, therefore the case must fail. Mr Field contended that although negligence could not be presumed, yet the position of the law on the subject was that owing to the difficulty of proving negligence in use of an article hired, the plaintiff had only to prove facts from which negligence was a reasonable inference, and that then the onus of proof was upon the defendant to show he had not been negligent. The driving froni the ground and the starting before the gate was open he contended were sufficient proof of negligence to put the onus on the other side, and they had not disproved negligence, therefore he was entitled to a verdict.- —Decision reserved. I DISPUTE OVER FISH Burnett v. Diraka. —Mr Field for plaintiff, and Mr Beale for defendant. This was a case in which Diraka agreed to pay for fish at 3d over the market price. Burnett sent him up 160 dozen flounder in May, for which Diraka paid him 1/6, per dozen, alleging the fish were' small. " It was proved the market price for flounder that week was 2/9, and Burnett sued for 1/3 per dqzen extra (£;10 in all). The Court found that the fish were a hit small, but so was the price, and awarded Burnett an extra £7 and costs, Several cases were adjourned till next Court day. POLICE CASES The case of Mary J. Bates against R. H. Bates for rnair^teuance, was withdrawn by leave. A. P. Smith (Rabbit Inspector) sued Mary MclSFaughto.n for failing to destroy rabbits under the Rabbit Nuisance Act '1908,1 The defendant was convicted and fined 7/ cqsts. Sergt.-Major Fletcher (Defence Department) summonsed M. F. Fro,st fqi- failing to attend d/ill.^— Case adjourned till next Qour-t day. Sergt-.Major Robertson, also on behalf of the Defence Department, charged S. H. Dickey and H. R. Bradly for failing to attend camp. — Both cases were adjourned till next Court day. This was alj the business.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

V\yE notice, one or. two items upon, the Supplementary Estimates of importance to this portion of the district j amongst others — £180 HelensviUe. fishermen's, wharf, and £200 Helensville-Kaukapa-kapa West Coast Roa'l,

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/KWE19141106.2.37

Bibliographic details

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 6 November 1914, Page 5

Word Count
718

HELENSVILLE S.M. COURT Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 6 November 1914, Page 5

HELENSVILLE S.M. COURT Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 6 November 1914, 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