MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 973, 30 March 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., yesterday morning. non-registration or' dog. Patrick Deuihan was proceeded against by the Registrar of Dogs for the Borough of Foxton (E. J. Martin) for failing to register a dog owned by him. Mr R. Moore appeared for the inspector, who gave evidence to the effect that a dog owned by defendant, and which witness had seen almost continuously up to the last day or so, had not been registered. The defendant did not appear and was fined as with costs ys aud solicitor’s fee ios 6d and ordered to pay the registration fee, ios. At a later stage plaintiff put in an appearance and stated that since receiving the summons he had destroyed the dog. Ihe Magistrate said that the destroying of a dog after the beginning of the year did not absolve the owner from paying the lax for that year but in the present case he would not order the registration fee to be paid, but would increase the fine to SS. Family Robinson was also proceeded against for failing to register a dog of which she was the owner. The inspector gave evidence to the effect that he had seen the dog up till February i6th and prior to that date had on several occasions applied for the registration fee. For the defence, Fred Robinson, husband of plaintiff, swoie that he shot the dog in question somewhere about December 24th. The case was dismissed.

Albert J. Robinson, who did not appear, was charged with the same offence, and alter hearing the evidence of the inspector and Mr E. Jane, the Magistrate inflicted a fine of 2s with costs 9s, witness’ expenses 2s 6d, solicitor’s fee los 6d and ordered defendant to pay the registration fee ol 10s. UNDKKKNDKD CASKS.

Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases :—K. S. Snow v. C. N. Cannell, claim £1 ss, costs 6s; E. W. Wilson v. O. F. Cook, £3 ns Bd, costs ns ; same v. George Wright, £7 6s 3d, costs 33s od ; W. Ross and Son, Ltd., v. W. G. Smith, £± 17s Bd, costs 1 os; W. E. Woodham v. Mrs E. Smith, £9 6s, costs 28s od ; Stevens, Easton and Austin, v. A. Reeve, £0 18s id, costse 3s 6d. CKAIM I'OR HOARD AND WATCH. The case A. E- Shad bolt v. C. W. Linley, which had been adjourned by the court from the last sitting, was again brought forward. Mr R. Moore appeared for plaintiff and defendant conducted his own case. The claim was for £6 4s, being £3 4s for board and £3 value of a watch lent to defendant and not returned. At the last sitting of the court plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that defendant had boarded with him for for some time and when he left was still owing the amount claimed. The claim of £3 was for a watch lent to defendant and not returned. Defendant was going to HunterviHe to a concert and asked witness for the loan of the watch and chain. When he came back the chain was returned, but upon witness asking for the watch Linley said it was in his box and would be alright. The watch, produced, was found in Linley’s room after he had left, but it was not the one belonging to witness. Witness said defendant had repeatedly borrowed tde watch and chain whenever he had been going to a concert or dance. Cross - examined by defendant witness denied ever borrowing money from Linley, but contended that any borrowing done was on the other side. Yesterday morning plaintiff gave further evidence. He stated that Linley commenced 'Hoarding with him in November, 1909. The rate per week was 16s and defendant paid up regularly every fortnight until July 23, when the mill ceased operations and he was thrown out of work. The mill was closed for six or eight weeks and during this time Linley was away in Pahiatua for about a week and a half for which plaintiff allowed two weeks board. No payments were made during the time the mill was closed, the next payment being made on September 17, when the previous two weeks board were paid for. Defendant afterwards paid fortnightly until he left, promising to pay the back board as soon as be was aide. The day he went away the account was given to Linley who said it was not right as he had had some meals at Fee's and these should be allowed for. Prior to Linley leaving witness had told him to go as he had found him to be dishonest. Witness had on several occasions asked for the return of the watch lent and Linley had promised to return it. In reply to questions by defendant, witness denied ever borrowing money from Linley, and contended that any borrowing done was on Linley’s side. Did not borrow £1 to go to Wanganui Races on May 24. Had never been to races at Wanganui on that date. Knew the horse called Sir Antrim, but did not think he was running at Wanganui at the steeplechase meeting. May have sent money to Marlon on Irish Rifle, but did not borrow it from defendant. He denied absolutely ever borrowing money from Linley, who, he said, never had any to lend. Frederick Robinson gave evidence to the effect that he was present when Shadbolt asked Linley to return the watch he had borrowed from him. Linley replied that it was in his box and he would

get it when be unpacked it. Defendant : “Your name is Robinson ; what s your occupation Witness ;“Well, I hardly know ; I suppose it is labourer.’’ Defendant: “You don t know your occupation. I don’t think any one else does, either.” The Magistrate: “Mr Diuley, you can ask questions, but don’t make any comment.” Jessie Shadholt, wife of plaintiff, corroborated the evidence given in support of the claim. When the bill was handed to Diuley on the day he left, he threw it down and said he did not owe it all, and would pay what he did owe. He told witness he was leaving, as Shadbolts had a bad name in Foxton. Previous to Diuley saying this witness had asked him to go. Witness denied borrowing money from Diuley. He always said he was short of money, stating that he only had what he was earning.

To defendant; Witness said she had never borrowed money from defendant, but he had borrowed from her. Denied getting £3 ios from him to pay for a costume or money to pay for shoes or other articles. Never got Diuley to write letters to creditors on her behalf. May have got him to address an envelope. Charles William Diuley, defendant, contended that there was no money due to plaintiff for board. The amount claimed for board was coveted by an amount of ,£3 ios lent to Mrs Shadbolt. Had also lent both her and Mr Shadbolt small amounts at different times, some of which may have been returned, but certain amounts were still owing. Did not keep account of the amounts. The watch which had been borrowed he left together with the chain, on the dressing table. When he borrowed the watch he had one of his own, but the glass of it was broken On the request of the Magistrate he produced his w r atcb, w T hich be said was now broken altogether. The watch had a hunting case, and upon the Magistrate pointing out that it would not have made any difference the glass being broken, witness said he thought it might and had therefore borrowed plaintiff’s.

To Mr Moore: Witness denied getting a bill when he left Shadbolt’s or receiving one subsequently. When he left there was nothing said about his owing money for board, lie had never been mixed up in a court case previously. His name was Diuley.

Under further cross-examination by Mr Moore, witness stated that he had always been known as Diuley since he had been in the colonies, but admitted that his father’s name was Dudley and that his correct name was Dudley.

He had changed his name because he ran away from homeThe Magistrate said the evidence was conflicting, but defendant had failed to satisfy him that the money for board was not due. The claim for the watch lent would also be upheld, but £2 ios only would be allowed for same. Judgment was entered up for £5 14s, with costs ios, aud solicitor’s fee £1 6s • .