MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2238, 12 February 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s. Court was held before Ahf J. L. Stout, S.M., yesterday. BREACH OF APIARIES ACT. E. H. Howan was charged with keeping bees which were not in a properly constructed hive, and also with failing to make application foi registration of apiary. The Inspector of Apiaries (Mr •Jacobsen) said that in orde rid check disease legislation had been passed requiring all apiaries to In registered, and also that bees must' only be kept in a properly constructed hive, The Department intended to rigidly enforce the regulations, and proceedings were being taken against: all offenders. Mr Bergin appeared for defendant, who pleaded not; guilty. Evidence was given by G. A. Hobbs, who held an authority ns an inspector under the Apiaries Act, that he visited defendant’s property and asked defendant’s wife if they had any bees, and she said they had not. He, however, found a hive behind some lupins. They were in a frameless box, Mrs Howan then said they were going to send them away. He saw the defendant next day, ami he told witness that he had .-old the bees, but as there was trouble lie would now keep them. To Mr Bergin: Told Mrs Howan she would get a notice from the Departmenl. She may have told witness when she got the bees. She did not ask him what she had to dt< to comply with the Act. E. H. Howan, the defendant, stated that on Ihe morning of the December Sexton slock sale he saw a swarm of bees on the sale yards, and as it would he impossible to hold the sale with llie bees in the position they were, lie borrowed a. benzine case, put the swarm in it, and took it over to his property. The same day he went to Mr Bullard and tried to get a framed box, but could no] get one. Either the next day or the day following that his wife told him that Mr Hobbs had been (o see about the bees. He went and saw Hoobs next day, and asked him what he had to do to comply with the Act, hut Hobbs Mated that it was not his duty to tell him, but that he would get a police from Iho Department in five or six days. He did not get this notice, and he therefore destroyed the bees.

Air Jacobsen said that apparently Air Howan had not been quite fairly treated.

The Magistrate said that under the circumstances the eases would be dismissed. BREACH OF BY-LAWS. Arthur Rouse, who did not appear, was charged with riding a bicycle on the footpath, and was convicted and iined ss, with costs 7s.

BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER.

11. P. Jacobson was charged with procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order. Mr Bergin said that defendant took out the order himself, and when he went into the publican’s booth On the racecourse was under the impression that the order had expired. As a matter of fact it did not expire until four days later. Defendant had since consented to another order, and under the circumstances he asked for lenient treatment.

The Magistrate entered a conviction, and fined defendant IDs, with costs 7s. APPLICATION FOR PROHIBITION ORDER.

E. Tollison made application for the issue of a prohibition order against, his brother-in-law, John Coley. The defendant did not appear, and the order was granted. UNDEFENDED CIVIL CASES.

Judgment for plain till's was entered up in I lie following undefended civil eases: —N. McDowell v. P, Henderson, claim 17s !Jd, costs 15s; Cf, G. Kelly v, S. Eagle, £3 10s Od, costs 23s (id;'A, N. Smith v. W. Robinson, 2s Id, costs 15s; and Stiles and Matheson, Ltd., v. Taite Tctoino, £2O. Gs 9d, costs £3 Gs'Od, DEFENDED CASES. T, AJlerby (Mr Bergin) proceeded against L. Poupard (MrDaniell) fo recover‘the sum of £l2 10s Od alleged to he due for grubbing fescue, Plaintiff claimed that he arranged to do the work at £5 per acre, and was entitled to payment for tho portion completed. Defendant said that the arrangement was that plaintiff was to grub the block (no acres) for £IOO. He had only completed a small portion, and had left the work without notifying defendant. After hearing the evidence, judgment was given for defendant, with costs £2 2s Od,