S.M. Court.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3573, 16 September 1905, Page 2

S.M. Court.

(Before A. Thomson S.M.) THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 14x11. CIVIL. Gray v. Cameron claim £l2. Mr Reade appeared for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs 15s. Solicitors fee 10s 6d. Gray v. Clark claim £l2 10s. Mr Reade for plaintiff. Judgment by detank for amount claimed with costs 15s. Solicitors fee ios 6d. H>'wilt v Aldridge recovery of tenement. Mr Moore for plaintiff. At u-t sitting an agreement to give possession in a month had been made. Mr Reade asked for an extension oointing out that defendant who was crippled by rheumatism could not get another place. The S.M. made an order for possession withing 7 days. Fred. Loveday v. Allan Harper claim £2 8s yd. Mr R. Moore for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff with costs :Bs.

Cummerfreld and Spring v. Win. Preu claim £1 ns rod. Mr R. Moore tor plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff tor amount claimed with costs ss.

Geo. Mariner v. Vertigen claim £2 15s. Mr R. Moore for plaintiff. As plaintiff had been removed to the asylum the case was adjourned to the next sitting, M. Perrean v. W. Wallbutton 15s Bd. Mr Moore for plaintiff. Judgment for Plaintiff for amount claimed with costs ios.

Wm Roberts v. H. Austin and W. W. Young. A. McKegney v. H. Austin and W. W. Young claim £6 its in each case. Mr Moore for plaintiff and C. E. Harden tor defendant, 11. Austin, plaintiff stated that they had been working for Young under a contract let to Young by Austin, and that Austin had paid Young in advance contrary to the provisions of the statutes for protection of workmen’s wages, in consequence of which orders of attachment which plaintiff had obtained on the contract money were ■imperative. After hearing evidence which was somewhat complicated owing to the inability of the witnesses to remember what work had been done on specified dates tlie Magistrate ruled .that defendant had not paid Young more than he was entitled to pay when the orders of attachment were

-erred. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant, H. Austin. DoCendant wained his claim tor costs.

Estate of E. S. Thynne v. J, M. Wood claim £8 ns rod for supply ot “ Herald ” from November 4, 1892, to July 17 1900. R. Moore for plaintiff and Mr G. E. Harden for defendant. Defendant pleaded that most of the claim was barred by the statutes of Limitation. Plaintiff produced a 'etter written by defendant in 1901 and claimed that it amounted fo an admission of the debt. After hearing argument by counsel 011 both sides the Magistrate said be could not accept the letter as a sufficient acknowledgment on the part of the defendant to take the case out of the statute. Council for plaintiff pointed out that in-claims under £2O the court was not bound by technical rules of law in cases where the applications of suen rules had no merit and was in any case d uibtffil. His worship said that though he had such power he did not think he ought to exercise it in this case.. He would give judgment for plaintiff for the part of the claim which' came within the statutory period of six years —£ 1 12s rod and cost 6s, an.l would non-suit the plaintiff as to the rest of the claim.

J, McAlister v. G. Coley claim £25, value of flax cut and removed from plaintiff’s property at Motoniti an 1 damage done to fences. Mr Harden for plaintiff, Mr Reade for defendant. Plaintiff deposed to owning a leasehold at Motoniti on which some flax was growing. This had been cat and removed without his con-ent and the fences damaged in the removal. Fr an inquiries made he found that the defendant had done so. Ho had nude a claim of AS, being about 12 tons at 50s per toip as the land w s not far from Foxton. on Mr Coley, who oak no notice of it. He put the matter in; a solicitor’s hand and was offered .50s which he declined. Cross-examined —Knew the average royalty was 10s to 12s 6d per ton but this flax was easily accessible. He only paid £3 a year for the section which contained about 12 ames. I lad always been on good terms with Coley. About a year ago he owed Cole,’ about £2O for cattle purchased which he had paid then. Did not make anv claim then for the flax as he thought Coley would allow him something. Saw Coley daily when he (plaintiff) was in the County Councils’ employ, but for the same reason did not speak to him about it. The fence was about 2 j years old and though some of th - posts were down it was in fair condition. Cattle bad got in and damaged the section.

Robert Andrew and James Smith, witnesses for the plaintiff, both deposed that they had never been on the section or removed any flax from there. They carted flax from Mr Robinson’s property which was at the back of the section. Andrews de nied bavin" told plaintiff tint Cole, had cut the flax. In 1902 a man named Spring had cut the flax for Mr King but he did not know who carted it. Mr Harden applied for an adjournment as he had been unable to subpoena an important witness. Tin application was granted subject -to payment of 25s costs. CRIMINAL. Police v. Frederick Dunn. Dc fendant was charged with lifting found drunk in a public plan Main street, on the gth August. Mr Reade for tin defendant who pleaded “Not guilty.”

John O-boklitoiic deposed to meet ing defendant who was the worse for liquor in the Avenue. Was asked fo • a match which a person who was wit!; witness gave defendant. Cross examined : He was alone and not annoying anybody. Seemed to be able to find his wav homo.

Leo Alzdorf met defendant who was not dead drunk though he was no. sober. Had a talk with him abon. going out coursing next day and

asked for the loan 0 f his dog which was granted. In cross examination: Defendant talked rationally and was able to stand straight. Left him talking to A. Goldsack.

His Worship dismissed the case stating that if he convicted on such evidence he would be convicting one every day in the week.