COURT NEWS

Opotiki News, Volume II, Issue 143, 8 February 1939, Page 3

COURT NEWS

MAGISTRATE’S SITTING

The monthly sitting of the Opotiki Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday before Mr. ill L. Walton, S.IYI. Constable W. A. Ratliie conducted ■proceedings on behalf of the police. A young Maori woman was charged with the theft of various articles'from the Opotiki Mission House and also with obtaining goods from a local shop by false pretences by representing that she had a husband who would pay for the goods. The accused pleach'd guilty and: said she had nothing to say. On behalf of the accused, the Rev. Morgan said that the young woman had meant she was keeping company with a young man and she bad meant by that that she had a husband Maori way. She had also suffered two accidents, on the second occasion being thrown from a horse and suffering head injuries. The second accident had affected

her considerably and since then she had boon' in the habit of picking up things and wandering. The magistrate admitted the accused to probation for 12 months on each charge and an order was made for the return of the articles. Supply of Liquor to Maoris. Seven men. including three taxi drivers, faced' various charges arising cut of the supply- of liquor to Maoris off licensed premises and within Maori pah areas. Fines ranging from £5 down to .£2 with costs were inflicted bv Mr. Walton. Constable Ratliie stressed the difficulty the police had in securing evidence in connection with the taking of liquor into Mhori pahs. Trouble at Te Kaha. A Maori. T. Brown, was charged with striking a storekeeper, Mr. J. ji: Cosset, of To Kalin, in the face with a fist and also with using insulting language. Mr. Hodgson appeared for accused who pleaded guilty to both- charges. Constable Ratliie said; that .Brown went into a. store at Te Kaha and created a disturbance in the presence of women and children. The shopkeper asked him to go outside and was struck a blow on the chin. A customer took Brown outside, when he used the language complained of. Mr. Hodgson said that Brown was so drunk that he didn't know what ho was doing at the time and had no remembrance of it afterwards. Mr. Walton convicted and fined Broun £2 with costs 35s on tin* first charge and fined him £5 with costs 45s on the second charge. Traffic Cases. Only three traffic cases were brought forward, proceedings being taken by the borough traffic inspector,. Mr. T. FJ. Morel I. For driving on tho footpath a young man was fined .£ 1 and costs, while two motor-cyc-lists, who rode their machines with inefficient silencers were each fined .£L and costs.

TROUBLE OVER MILK SUPPLY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT A civil case between Ashdown and son and A. and It. 'Jew, occupied a good, deal of the day. The case opened in the morning and continued well' into the afternoon. ' Plaintiffs (Mr. N. V. Hodgson) claimed the sum of X'O'd 8s 4d fi r milk supplied to defendants (Mr. Many, Whakatane). Mr. Hodgson in opening his case said that plaintiff was a farmer living at Opotiki and defendants were mother and son carrying on business as milk vendors. Defendants went to iC : bh&. plaintiff and got him to supply ’ -them>.with the whole of their supply ' .N-ioX, prrfUc during the winter. Plaintiff •. .also .milked 'on sections belonging to - defendants and also milked cows • ‘Hyiti the defendants. Defendants found vthey iiad; insufficient milk to. kerjj up . the Itipjplv. • An allowance of 4 gallons was-,made to defendants in re- < .-A «pect of milk from defendants' six j» eow's mwLhthe grazing. Later two cr . three more cows of defendants calved. Henry Ashdown commenced to * work for defendants on the milk round and he had to obtain milk from various sources. Plaintiff had a hook showing the amount of milk collected each day. Alfred Ernest Ashdown, farmer, 0potiki, saiil he was the lessee of a ■property just outside the borough. His son lived with him. Witness started supplying defendants with

milk on tile Ist. of August. He made the arrangement with Stan Tew and • Mrs. T-e.w. He was to milk six cows of Tews and had the use of their land. Ho was to allow Tews 4 gallons of milk per day and Tews were to take as much, milk as he could supply. Tew.s’ cows were only milked once a day. Witness was seldom present when the milk was collected in the morning sometimes at 10 o’clock and 1 sometimes at midday. The night milk was used in the morning and the morning milk at night. Ho trusted whoever collected the milk to -put down the correct measurements. He was paid for the milk .supplied in August. Milk supplied later was not paid for by defendants. His son was working for Tews and was supposed to be looking after Tews’ -business. When his son left, Tews collected their cows. At the finish Tews sent down two extra cows.

Cross-examined by Mr. Barry, witness said no cows had enough feed in the winter. . Before he had a place Tews offered to take up to GO gallons. He denied that he instigated the arrangement with Tows. Fie would ho surprised it he used 28 acres belonging to 'lews. He iyilked cows and had the assistance, of a hoy from Tews. . lie clothed and fed the hoy. He had 14 cows of his own—not 11. He bought 12 cows from the Loan Co. These were either milking or due to calve. He trusted Tews to give him the correct measurements, hutdenied that Tews were to get all the milk from their cows. There was little drop in total production alter Tews’ cmi's were taken uwav,

To Mr. Hodgson witness said he did not- have ail his own cows at once. He got them as they were due to come in. In connection with Tows’ paddocks, plaintiffs had 10 dry cows on their own paddocks.

Henry Ashdown. said he was a farmer and milk vendor, and he assisted: his father and then worked on the golf links. His father started off with two or three cows and the others came in later. Witness commenced to work for Tews on 27th. August and helped Ronald Tew. He picked up the milk; mostly with Ronald Tew and occasionally with tho hoy Mills. T he milk was in big cans at his. father's place. Tows did not have time to milk their own cows as Stan Tew had gone away. Ronald Tew gave witness a hand to measure the milk. Towards the end Ronald Tew signed: the hook because he (witness) refused to do this because of trouble. He finished up with Tews on the 18tli. October. The night milk was collected for the

morning round. Examined by Mr. Parry, witness said they had to make provision for extra feed. Tews' cows were increased to nine about tw 0 weeks before finishing off. Witness and Ronald Tew both helped with the pasteurising. When they collected' the milk at his father’s place the milk from the six cows was not kept separate. F ll opening the defence. Mr. Barry said that at the end of August an arrangement was made. Ashdown was to give Tews the milk from Tews’ cows. Plaintiffs considered 18 gallons a day was a fair estimate of Ashdown’s production. Afr.s. Tew in evidence said she had a milk round and they agreed to take Ashdown’s milk at lOd per gallon. They could not. get enough milk and had to collect it elsewhere. Ashdown was to milk witness’ cows and to have their grazing. r l he dry cows were grazed on the Hospital hill. Ashdown did not have the use of this

land. Mr. Ashdown said he had 12 cows andi then returned one of them. As the di’y cows were put off they were replaced by others coming in. When her cows were collected there were nine and .when milked they gave 13 gallons. She did not know the four gallons had been increased to eight gallons. Ashdowns were to give them all of the milk from witness’ cows/ Four gallons had not been mentioned.

Gross-examined witness said the arrangement had been made with Ashdowns when her husband went away. Ho was away for six weeks. Her dry cows were out in Davies’ place all the time. The. t area was lij- acres. The nine cows on the l£ acres were fed on hay. Ashdown had eight- of her cows from the start. She was to- get all of the milk from her eight cows. They had culled their herd and the cows were in full milk and they were still milking. Her husband had' put c-alving dates in the hook. She could nut explain how ho had entered the later culvers first and the first culvers later. When she finished with Mr. Ashdown they made arrangements with Mr. Young) for milk as she hoard Mr. Ashdown was commencing a milk round <>f his own. Witness then gave details of areas rented by herself. The matter of payment to Ashdowns for milk was left to her bookkeeper, she stated.

Mr. Stan. Tew, roundsman, said' lie remembered the arrangement made between liis wife and Mr. Ashdown. They helped to get Mr. Gough’s place for Mr. Ashdown. He suggested that Mr. Ashdown milk plaintiffs’ cows in consideration of grazing. Witness was milking five cows on Hospital hill prior to Mr. Ashdown taking over. The coivs were not drying off. They had about- 11 head of dry stock oil Mr. Merry’s property on the hill. The arrangement- with Ashdown was that plaintiffs were to get the whole of the iniHe from their own cows in consideration of the grazing.

Examined hv Mr. Hodgson witness said he was away from the beginning of _ September for two months. He went away/ again later for a few days. The entries in the book produced were copied from another hook which was still in the shed as far as he knew. He was away the whole of the time tho arrangement- was in existence. Mr. Barry was about to call another witness, hut MV. Walton said it was unnecessary. He could not believe that such a foolish arrangement could he entered into. lie would give judgment for defendants with costs amounting to £5 Jls. Judgment by confession was given plaintiff for the sum of £4O 10s 2d.