MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 449, 16 January 1909, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson, yesterday. Walter Anderson was charged that oh January i ith he did obstruct a public place to wit footpath in Main Street, By allowing an entire horse to remain thereon. Evidence was given by Constable Sweeney that he saw defendant’s horse standing across the footpath by Collins’ shop. Defendant came along, and witness

asked him what the horse was

doing there ? He said the horse must have.stepped up there. Saw the horse on the footpath for about five minutes. Anderson was down the street. Two ladies and several children came along while the horse was there, and had to go on to the road to pass. Constable Woods stated that when he served Anderson with the summons he said that he tied the horse to the ' verandah post, and it had got on to the footpath unknown to him. Walter Anderson said he had tied the horse to the verandah post, and while he was in the shop the horse put his two front feet ou the footpath. He came out and pulled him round. Constable Sweeney came up and wanted to know what the horse was doing there. He said “you Will hear more about this.” The horse was not on the footpath for more than a minute. Considered Sweeney had got a grudge against him. Thomas Mitchell stated that he saw the horse put his front feet on the footpath. Heard Constable Sweeney ask defendant what the horse was doing there. The horse could not have been on the footpath for more than a couple of minutes. The Magistrate said there bad been a breach of the Borough ByLaws, and inflicted a fine of 5s and

ys costs. Judgment for plaintiff was entered up in the following undefended cases Palmerston Cycle and Motor Co. v. John Harper, ,£4 2s 6d, costs ss, solicitor’s fee, s^; Manawatu Herald v. S. T. Saville, £2 2s, costs ss, solicitor’s fee, ss; same v. H. J. Cornwall, ,£9-185 6d, costs Bs, solicitor’s fee, 10s 6d. In the case George Wright y. George and Lizzie Tozer, claim £2 15s, judgment was given against the male defendant only, for amount claimed, with costs ss, and solicitor’s fee ss. The Foxton Borough Council sued S. H. Baker for 6s, being amount due for rates. Defendant

said he objected to pay the rates, as he considered they were exces)i Ive. He had offered to • v the 7 Council part of them, but they had * .iused to accept it. He considered 1 tnat the work of valuing the properties had not been properly carried out. There was also an error in calculating the amount. The Magistrate said that he could not go into the matter of valuations. There had been a ' a aistake of 6s 4d in the calculation, 'ilV.nd gave judgment for £27 19s k d, and £1 3s costs.