S.M. COURT.

Matamata Record, Volume III, Issue 139, 3 July 1919, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Matamata—Friday. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the Magistrate's Court Matamata, before Mr W. G. K. Kenrick, S.M., on Friday, judgment by default with costs was given for plaintiff in the following undefended actions : Wallace and Co. v. F. Irvine £4 14s; W. F. Bell v. J. Hayes £1 8s; A. J. Long v. T. Shaw £ll 6s 4d ; State Advances Department v. H. J. Pannett£lolls2d. AN ORDER REFUSED.

Edward Strong, described as a land agent, Matamata, was sued by the Auckland City Council (Mr Purnell) on a judgment summons for the recovery of £23 3s, amount duo in connection with the supply of fish while defendant was in business as a fish dealer in Auckland.

Tho judgment debtor said he had been employed as an agent for a building concern at £3 per week. Ho had a wife and 11 children, and nine of tho children were supported by him. He was at present engaged as a boot-re-pairer at about £1 por week. Under cross-examination, defendant denied that he was in the habit of not paying his debts. He had done a little land agency, but had not received any commission. He was unable to make an offer. Plaintiff's application for an order was refused, the magistrate stating that it was limpossible for debtor to pay in his present circumstances. TRESPASS OF A HORSE. The magistrate was engaged for somo time in hearing a case in which Tarei Tahitangata (Mr W. A. Carter) claimed to recover from A. M. Petersen (Mr W T . C. Hewitt) tho sum of £3O in lieu of possession of a mare and £24 damages for her detontion. There was a counter-claim in which Peterson sought to recover £lO from Tarei Tahitangata for damage to fences, damage to a horse, and damages for trespass. In the statement of claim, Tarei set out that in January, 1918, the horse in question strayed from his property at Papa ran man, that ho made diligent search and inquiry for the animal, and that in January, 1919, he discovered the mare on Petersen's property. Petersen refused to let him have the animal unless he paid £lO by way of damages. In the counter-claim Petersen submitted that the mare broke through the fence on bis farm at Okoroire. She also kicked a horse of his, and damaged other fences by breaking through them. Evidence was given by Peterson that he advertised having found the horse, but got no reply. He also made inquiries in the district without success. He then broke in the horse, and used it for light hack work. He occasionally used it in harness. Evidence was led in support of the claim and counter-claim.

The magistrate, in giving judgment, said the horse had now been returned, and Tarei's claim for the value of the animal foil through. His Worship assessed the value of the horse to Peterson at £4. In connection with the counterclaim, the magistrate allowed Petersen £1 10s for damages to his fence, £4 damages for the.injury inflicted by the mare on another horse. He did not consider Petersen was entitled to damages for trespass for he "had kept the animal for a long time when he could have got rid of it. Each side was ordered to pay its own costs.