Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 7 May 1891, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

(Before H. W. Brabant Esq, R.M.) Wednesday, 6th May. On the Magistrate taking his seat, Mr Kay congratulated him on the recovery of his health. CIVIL CASES. C. Honore v. H. Symons — Claim £4 12s. Defendant had paid full amount of claim, but not mileage, 30s. The defendant had shifted since the mileage was paid. The R.M. said he could not give judgment for mileage not incurred, and the only plan was for the plaintiff to apply for a re-fund. T. Ennis v. H. Robinson — Claim £5 10s for clothes. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount with costs 225. J. E. Nathan & Co v. E. Malcolm - Claim £5 17s 3d. The defendant admitted the claim, but asked for time, stating that he was already paying 30s a month out of his wages. He offered to pay 5s a month. Last year he had paid over £30 of old debts. The R.M. asked if the defendant had been summoned for the amounts he was paying off. Defendant replied not. The R.M. said it was the defendant's duty to have paid this claim first as it was sued for. The plaintiff, Mr C. E. Shortt, said he did not want to be hard, and would take 10s a month. The defendant agreed to pay the 10s a month, and'judgment was so entered with costs lls. D Stewart v. E. Adams — Claim £1 for boots. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs 6s. A. Musgrove v. J. Moran — Claim lls for board. No appearance of deie-idant, Judgment for amount and costs 6s. T. Ennis v. J. Douglas — Claim £5 10s for suit of clothes. Plaintiff swore to the delivery of the clothes. Defendant said that he gave an order on his employers for the amount before he got the suit. Plaintiff said that he did not present the order ; it was on Davidson and Butler, and Davidson refused to pay ; he did not tell defendant the order was unpaid ; the clothes were supplied eight months ago ; he could not find defendant ; plaintiff asked leave to fetch the order which the defendant desired to be produced. The R.M. said that judgment would have to go against defendant, as the order had not been paid and he had had the suit of clothes ; but that he could have an adjournment to produce Mr Davidson to prove that he was responsible. The adjournment was applied for. CRIMINAL. Kupa te Karaha v. Tuhera Kiriona. The charge was for breaking a padlock on a gate of the value of five shillings. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff deposed that some disagreement arose from persons crossing some potatoes, and that he, being one of those on the certificate of the land, bad said he would put a lock on tlic gate, and he did so : next

morning the defendant broke the lock and told his friends to come that way as the gate was open ; the lock was broken and he saw the defendant break it ; the damage he sustained was the breaking of the lock, which cost 25.. Cross-examined by defendant — The gate was erected by Pouni and himself; the Horowhenua Council erected the gate ; there was a gate there before the road was made. The gate was not always ESpi'looked. Defendant called Tamihana te Hohia, who deposed that the gate was erected on an established road used years back ; a gate had been there for 39 yeafs>, the land was passed through the Court years after the gate had been erected ; the road goes to the settlement ; the gate has not been locked for 20 years. Cross-examined by the prosecutor — The Council made the road about three years ago ; the gate stands on the side of road line ; he disputed the position of the gate ; if gate stood on No. 2 block everyone had a right to go through, but if it stood ton the Waitarere block the prosecutor would be right ; the outside boundaries have been surveyed but not, subdivisions. He afterwards stated that that they had been, two weeks ago, but he had not seen the surrey lines \ they had for years and years back been in the habit of using this gate for a road ; he thought the defendant was right in breaking the look ; he had heard that last year prosecutor had locked the gate. ...--, ; , „i, / V) The defendant said that 'this gate w#s erected before he was born ; the gate the Council put up cuts through Waitarere and No. 2 block ; it was erected for the use of all ; the road was made by Govei*no.r n^rey4or the use of all to Foxton and the" beach ; it was only now that any , obstacle had been ifti^J&itsj^' |^e f miderstood the only; pretQ^Jft^PPw the gate was bec^e^th^|haa^#:n at prosecutor ; ; fwi&_ 'fi&mm^6M had threatened ts?Bfe -over^#|»stening of the gate 7£? v:.~ ■■<:' : :,r'%L The R.M. said that thej.aefence was that defendant had a nglit to go through as it was an old xbad ; the only other evidence than prosecutor and defendant's was Tamihaiia te Hohia, who said that it hadbeen used 30 years. He thought Tamihana's evidence was very fair, he saidlhat if the gate was on Waitarfire block the prosecutor would have a 'right to lock it, but if \ on No. 2 block he would have no right. He Jiad said the gate was on No 2 bldck, prosecutor said it was on the Waiarere block. He had not sufficient evidence to show which block it was on. It appeared defendant had reasonable cause to break the * lock, as he had been using the road, he had therefore not been guilty of a malicious offence and -he-couid not convict Tao*. He recommended ithem to get the position of the gate defined. He held defendant acted in defence of a right and could not be held guilty. Case dismissed, each party to, pay their own costs. Te Amin Marere te.lKaraha was charged with using abusive language to Te Waka Torbwhiti. ■ ' • •'- Mr Ray appeared, for defendant. Case dismisseol, defendant ifc^ pay the costs of the action.