MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 604, 2 December 1909, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson S.M., yesterday. Civil, Cases. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended cases -C. H. Collins v. Charles Adin, claim £5 8s 3d, costs, ;£i 5s 6d ; J. A. Nash and Co. Ltd., v. Young, £ll 10s 1 id, costs £1 14s 6d ; Walter Anderson v. Charles Adin, £1 13s, costs ss; Kate Spiers v. O. Horring, 7s, costs 5s ; Austin and Park v. Wm. Moffatt, £2 3s 4d, costs los ; Kate Spiers v. A. Chamberlain, £8 is 6d, costs 8s ; Foxton Borough Council v. J. W. Thompson, £8 7s Bd, costs 10s ; G. Wright v. D. O’Keefe, 15s 6d, costs 5s ; M. H. Walker v. G. and F. Eow, £1 2s 6d, costs 16s ; J. Webb v. W. Anderson, £2, costs xos. In the case of H. Thompson v. J. Rodgers claim for rent and possession of house, judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs, and an order was made for possession within seven days. Judgment Summonses. In the case of A. Cockburu v. Frank Coyle, the judgment debtor was ordered to pay the amount, £5 12s 6d forthwith, in default nine days’ imprisonment. Thomas Wanklyu was ordered to pay A. R. Osborne £1 forthwith, in default three days’ imprisonment. Aeeeged Breach oe Borough By-eaws. F. S. Easton was charged on the informatian of the police with a breach of the Borough By-laws, by leaving a motor car in Main Street at night without lights. Mr Cooper appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. He pointed out that there was no bylaw covering the offence. The Magistrate dismissed the case as it was not covered by the Foxton Borough by-laws. Depended Case. Stevens, Easton and Austin (Mr Cooper) proceeded against S. J. Mullins" (Mr Gifford Moore), to recover the suth of £25 17 s lo£ i for rent due, interest etc. There was a counter claim from Mullins for £2,5 is for damages to stock belonging to claimant and impounded through the alleged negligence of plaintiffs, half cost of well, breach of agreement, etc. The plaintiffs abandoned the claim for interest. It appeared from the evidence that Mullins was first grazing cattle on plaintiffs land for which he paid fivepence per head per week. While this arrangement was in force a number of the cattle were impounded by Mr Frankland, who had leased the land in question from the plaintiffs. Mullins alleged that through the impounding the cattle were damaged. One of the plaintiffs, Easton, swore that he had advised Mullins that Frankland had leased the paddock in question, and he told Mullins to shilt the cattle. Claimant on the other hand, swore that the matte 1 had not been mentioned to him by Easton. Some time later Mullins entered into an agreement to lease a certain portion of the land at 20s per acre, and portion of the plaintiffs’ claim was for rent ot same. Mullins said that Easton had agreed to pay halt of the cost of repairing a well and had also agreed to erect a new gate on the property. This he had not done and through his negligence claimant alleged that his cattle got on to the roads and were impounded. The evidence was most conflicting, and delendant absolutely denied certain conversations which one or the other alleged had taken place between them. Judgment for plaintiffs was given for the amount claimed £2l 4s lid with costs £1 _ 14s, solicitor’s tee £2 2s and witnesses expenses, £l. On the counter claim judgment was given for claimant for £3 with costs ss, solicitor’s fee £1 is and witnesses expenses 20s.