S.M. COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2737, 24 May 1924, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

The monthly sitting of the S.AI. Court was held yesterday before Mr J. L. Stout. S.AI, BY-LAW CASES. F. Vei’tongen. for riding a bicycle within the borough without a light after sunset, was fined 5/- with 7/- costs. AI. Taylor, D. J. Moynihan. H. Harford, and S. A. Gibbons foxdriving motor vehicles within the borough at a speed contrary to the by-laws, wi re each fined £2 with costs 7/-. S. Vincent and H. Arden, for riding a motor cycle after sunset without a light, were fined £1 and costs 7/-. For failing to register a dog, C. Aldridge was fined £1 with costs 7s. J. N. Rider, for allowing a cow to wander within the borough was fined 5/- with 7/- costs. AA r . Barrett, on a similar charge was fined 10/- with costs 7/-. CiYIL CASES Judgment was entered up for plaintiff in the following civil undefended cases. — N. Evans v. J. Higgins, claim £l2, costs £2 18/-: Commissioner of Taxes v. -T. McDonald, £4 3/5. costs 10/-: D. \V. Robertson and Co. Ltd. v.. W. Hall. £l9 15/(1. costs £2 17/-; H. D. Alclver v. .7. Mouatt, £3 3/9, costs 23/0: same v. AY. Better, £l4 12 '-. costs £2 17/-: Foxton Motor and Engineering Co. v. W. J. Edward* £1 0/9. costs 8/-: same v. W. Winiatn £3 8/-. costs £1 14/6. The <-ivil ease Hoffman and Son Mrs H. Roxxt, was diseontinxxed by plaintiffs, for whom Air Bergin appeared. Air Hollings, appearing ■’or defendant, was allowed 10/6 costs. BREACH OF ST A AH* ACT. The police proceeded against C. Spcirs. of Shannon, for failing to attach sufficient stamps to receipts contrary to requircineixt of the Stamp Act. The pi-oceedings were instituted by the Commissioner of Stamps forwarding two re•oipts from defendant for sums of over £2 which contained only a

me-penny stamp each. Mr Bei’gin appeared for defendant and said that a mistake had been made. Defendant had made out the receipts at night and wrong -lamps had been placed on them. Other receipts from defendant bore two-penny stamps. There had been no attempt at evading the stamp duty. A letter was read by the S.AI. from the Commissioner of tSamps, :i which hr mentioned that some people were under the impression that it was not necessary to place a twopenny stamp on a receipt for a sum over £2 since the reduction in postage. This was not the case, however. The S.AI. said he thought the reason for the prosecution was that the Commissioner wished this mat-|:-r to he brought before the public to clear up any misundertanding on this point. He dj£ not think a deliberate attempt had been made to evade the stamp duty. Defendant was fined 5/- with 7/i osts on each of two charges.