S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, Volume XXIII, 3 December 1920, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before J. L. Stout, Esq. S.M.) Charge of Procuring Liquor. For several months past a police 1 action has been pending against William Atkinson for procuring liquor while prohibited, but as the police could find no trace of him the case was necessarily held up, and now that the summons had been served the prosecuting constable was too ill to appear. The S.M. considered that as the charge had been hanging over Atkinson’s head for nearly a year it would be only fair to have the charge withdrawn. This was agreed to by Constable Grcggan, the relieving officer. Maintenance. A claim for maintenance, separation and guardianship was applied for in the case of Lilian Bevan v. Thomas S. Sevan. Mr Harper appeared for plaintiff and Mr Stavelcy for the defendant. —It was agreed that the former be paid maintenance at the rate of £3 per week, first payment to be made on December 9th, and that she be given custody of the children, defendant to have reasonable .access to them once weekly. A Dairying Case. Te Horo Dairy Co. (Mr Harper) v. G. S. Sperring, claim £2l, fine for not supplying the factory, and counterclaim of £36 15s lid for butter-fat supplied. This, less a small amount, was admitted. Judgment was given for both amounts, each party to pay their own costs. Civil. Default was given in the following cases: Commissioner of Taxes v. Simon Ransfield, claim £46 IBs Id, costs 325; same v. te Ra Arokatera, claim £l2 Is Id. costs 265; same v. Henry Nicholson, claim £2l 17s lid, costs 395; same v. Henry Nicholson, claim £4 ISs 6d. costs 17s. Judgment Summons. In the case Howard Andrew v. Philip lloremia, claim £9 17s 3d, defendant said at present, he was out of work, line to floods at the flaxmill at Shannon. and when in work received 13s per day. His health had been bad. He admitted owning land at Ohau, but ,]jil not know the area, neither did he know wluit. rents were due to him. He was a married man with Jive children. An order was made fur payment at the rate of 10s per month, first payjment to be made on January 2nd, in default 14 days’ imprisonment. Claim for Goods. Howard Andrew (Mr Atmore) v. William Moore. —Claim £4 10s, balance mi goods supplied. Herbert J.‘ Parsonson said at the time the debt was incurred he was manager of Mr Andrew’s Ohau store. He knew the account to be correct. Howard Andrew considered there could not possibly have been a mistake. as the system used was the credit file of the National cash register, which was up to date and the best system he had used through his term in business. Defendant’s wife admitted flic liability, and asked for time to pay, to which he readily agreed. It j was the first dispute ever he had had with an account since the installation of the machine. Defendant denied getting the goods, and pointed out that bis wife was away at the time. The S.M. considered this insnfiicient proof that the goods were not secured, and gave judgment for plaintiff. Claim for a Horse. Wilfrid and Fred Chetter v. Peter Wootton. Claim for a horse sold. Both parties were to have been represented bv Wellington solicitors, who failed to put in an appearance. Defendant, who was present, asked to be allowed expenses for himself and two witnesses. This the S.M. agreed to, allowing witnesses and defendant 12s each, together with travelling expenses. «