S.M. Court.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 128, 24 September 1895, Page 3

S.M. Court.

Friday, September 20th, 1895. (Before H. W. Brabant, Esq., S.M., and G. W. Gane, Esq., J. P.) James Hickey v. H. Birkett. Claim, £lO. Mr Bushe Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment by default for £6 18s. Costs, £1 9s 6d. James McCullum v. Pihuka. Claim, £2 19s Bd. Mr Bushe Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, 14s 6d. J. McCullum v. Haupene. Claim, IGs. Mr Bushe Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, 9s 6d. E. P. Edmunds v. Mulligan. Claim, £4. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, 10s ; solicitor’s fee, ss. Wm. Harvey v. D. Whaley and W. Harvey. Claim, £6 Is 9d. Mr Bushe Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, 18s ; solicitor’s fee, 15s Gd. W. Harvey v. Te Whateroa. Claim, £3 5s 7d. Mr Bushe Bailey for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, 10s; solicitor’s fee, 10s. Opunake Town Board v. Harrison. Claim, 2s Gd, for rates. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, 6s. Same v. A. Seekamp. Claim, 7s lOd, for rates. Judgment by default with costs, Gs. C. Orchard v. Albert Seekamp. Claim, £1 0s Gd. Judgment by default for amount with costs, Gs. George Thomas v. Moss Simeon. Mr Shailer Weston for plaintiff. This was an information against defendant for riding through the Heimama gate without paying toll, on the 3rd August. Defendant did not appear. Fined 20s and costs, 7s; solicitor’s fee, 10s Gd; plaintiff’s expenses, 7s. J. J. Patterson v. Ihaka. Mr Bushe Bailey for defendant. Judgment summons,'£l9. Order varied by consent. £2 to be paid on 30th November ; £l, 31st December; £l, 31st January; £l, 28th February ; and £l4 on 31st March.

Findlay v. Rua Moetahuna. Mr Bushe Bailey for plaintiff; Mr Bennett for defendant. This was a claim for £l6 for grubbing gorse on defendant’s land. Plaintiff asserted that he took the contract at £2 10s per acre, but there was no written agreement. He had got Mr P. Silvester to measure the ground, and he made up the area as being something over six acres.

Defendant stated that the contract was let at a fixed sum of £lO. That when making arrangements with plaintiff to do the work he estimated there were about four acres in the contract, but that there was no mention made of a price per acre. Mr W. D. Scott, who acted as his agent, advised him to pay plaintiff £l2 10s rather than be put to the trouble and expense of defending the case, but plaintiff would not accept this amount. Mr W, P. Robinson had surveyed the ground, and produced a detailed plan on which the area was shown to be 4 acres 15 perches. Defendant had paid £lO into Court and £1 for expenses. His Worship thought it probable that as one of the parties was a European and the other a native there might possibly be a genuine misunderetanding.in the first instance. There was, however, a plan put in showing the acreage to be very little over four acres. There was also another measurement put in showing it to be over six acres. The Court, however, was bound to accept the plan of a practical surveyor, and in those circumstances judgment must pass for defendant for anything over £lO which had been paid in. Each party to pay his own costs.

George and David Plarrop v. D. C. Simson claim £1 10s. Mr Shailer Weston for defendant. This was a claim for £2 balance of of wages, and 28s in ’leu of a month’s notice.

The boy had signed a receipt for payment in full to date when leaving, and had declined to work the notice time out. Judgment for defendant, each party to pay his own costs. W. Harvey v. Eangitaura. Claim, £2 14s 6d. Mr Bushe Bailey for plaintiff. Defendant disputed two items. Mr A. Good acted as interpreter. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs, 10s 6d. Ihaia Ngakirikiri and others v. Maurire Nuku and others. Mr Shailer Weston for plaintiffs, and Mr Bushe Bailey for defendants. This was ah information against defendants for having broken down a fence erected by plaintiffs to protect a potato field which they had sown. The plaintiff Ibaia was one of the trustees named in the grant of the whole block on the seaward side of the Main South Eoad between the Ouri and Oeo Eivers, and considered he had the right by virtue of that to crop and fence the land in dispute. The defendants, on the other hand, had got a subdivision order made by the Native Land Court awarding this piece in dispute to them. They, however, had not got any license to occupy from the Public Trustee, who Avas now authorised to deal with it.

t An amicable arrangement Avas arrived at by which Ihaia should have the right to take out his crop of potatoes and then to remove his fence.