S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 6 October 1922, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before J. Logan Stout, .Esq., S.M., Unregistered Firearms. rolice v. William Aplin—Charge of being in possession of a firearm contrary to Statute. —No appearance of defendant. Constable Brydone stated that Aplin made the excuse thai lie did not j think shot-guns had to be registered. ! Fined lHs and costs. Police v. Harold Smith—Charge of |>eni"' in possession of unregistered suns.—Defendant pleaded guilty by i letter.—Constable Brydone stated that J the registration appeared to be ;in over-] sight, but that Smith should have been ' more careful. Fined Ids and costs.

Missing Uniform. Police v. Geo. Ayre —Charge ef failinl' to deliver up uniform when requested to do so. —Defendant pleaded guilty. Sergt. .Major Peine said most of the articles had been returned, and thai Ay re offered to pay for missing parts. Ordered to pay ISs Sd and costs. Judgment Summons. A. D. Bums (Mr Atinore) \. I'red and Wm. Chetter—Olaiui £2O Is. Defendants said they offered to pay so much per month but that Burns refused to accept. They had 90 acres of laud and 13 cows, all the land would carry. They had horses, but no pigs, took milk to the factory and drew £4 Us 3d for August, and £164 13s for the whole yar. They paid_out £146 Els; they had not the September cheque yet. They had not tried to avoid payment, Intt it had only been slavery since they

look the land over four years ago. They bought the land til £2B and owed si deal of money on it yet. The income for the coming year should be over £2llo,—No order. Claim for Wages. George Chow Ji"g (Mr Atmore) v Ah Sue (Mr Stavcley)—Claim £B, counter-claim £!•"> 19s lid. Ah Sue stated the articles in the claim he had secured from .ling, and claimed from .Ting for work done. Jing agreed to pay him £3 per week for 3J week?. In December he claimrd £1 16s for two days' work done. This and other money owing lie hail not received from .Ting. .ling stated that he engaged Ah Sue tor two weeks at E2 5s per week, and that he had paid him the £-1 Ws. He did not agree to pay £3 per week. The S.M. gave judgment lor plaintiff lor £8 and costs. £1 13s, and disallowed the counter-claim. Claim for Loss of Use of Car. .tessic William.- (Mr Stavcley) v - Ayre Bros. (Mr Atmore)—The state nient of claim was that in or aboul -\pril. 1920, the plaintiff instructed de fondant.- to overhaul her motor-car/ and that while the said car was in defendants' possession they removed the carburettor ami certain starting ['artwithout authority, and further that the defendant- supplied to the said car a carburettor that was unsuitable. As a

result «1' defendants' actions the plaintiff had been deprived of tha use of the ,ar. The plaintiff therefore claimed £2O, £1 for the unsuitable carburettor, £G value of carburettor -and starting part?. and £lO damage for loss of use of car. Plaintiff stated: 1 reside at Paraparaumu and claim the amount for parts I consider removed, and which had been replaced by other parts. When 1 got the car after repairs had been affected it never went the same It had never been satisfactory since. Lust November I had it overhauled again, and asked Ayre Bro*. to return the carburettor. I received no reply; Inter I railed on the firm and was told the the carburettor had been used long ago. Mr Jones offered to have a Ford carburettor fixed up lor me and I agreed to take it, and to send other parts with !'. The carburettor tailed to materialise and I made further complaints, and threatened to make a claim for parts I considered removed, and carburetter. To Mr Atmore: Mr Jones was recommended to me as being a good mechanic I instructed the firm to sec to the engine, brakes, tubes, tyres, and general bearings; I gave no instructions to replace the carburettor. I have had practically no use put of the car since the repairs were effected. The S.M. pointed out that nearly two years had elapsed before the objection was made. He suggested that Ayre Bros.' offer to replace the carburettor be accepted.

Mr Jones considered some of the statements made were incorrect, and ihat no doubt some trifling thing was wrong with the car,, which he agreed to ;UK-nd to. Adjourned till next Court day. Claim for Kent. John Meads (Mr Staveley) v. George Harper, as executor of George Gallagher, deceased (Mr Atmore). Plaintiff claimed rent of whare and paddock, jhe property of plaintiff from December iith, 1915,' to December oth, 10,21, at 5s per week, viz., £7B. or in the. alternative the value of a horse, cart and harness given by the deceased to plaintiff in lieu of such rent. Plaintiff stated: Gallagher came to me and offered to pay 5s per week for grazing a horse, and also rented a house from me. Later r horse and dray left fith me was taken and sold. Mr Har- I per. executor, seemed inclined to give me the hoTse. but after a time he claim-1 c~i it and in consequence 1 saw my so-Ji'-itor. Mr Harper eventually sold the h~rse st the sale vardr-. To Mr Atmore: Gallagher raid the Lo.-r.e and dray were to be mine in,, place or rent. The £.11.: If plaintiff did not get for rent and grazing something n iue to mm. ». H. said he drew up Gallagher's Trill, and had n<~- recoilec-rcn of any mention being raada of the horse And cart. Plaintiff Triads no claim for

rent, but asked for the horse, cart, and harness; there was no suggestion of a j contract. 1 The S.M. gave judgment for £ls 15s • for use and occupation. Civil Business. Judgment was given in the following cas-os by default with costs: —C. V. Swabcy v. Manahi te Hinkia—Claim £l-1; Farmers' Meat Co. v. .T. M. Bye — , Claim £S 8s !3d; A. W. Roberts v. Bay Pitton—Claim £7 -Is 9d; Vera Field v. j .las. Lemmon—Claim £9 18s; G. S. Sharp v. C. J. Smith —Claim £2 L's.