S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 2 March 1923, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before J. L. Stout, Esq., S.M.) Maintenance Orders, David Courteney made application fo cancellation, variation or susponsioi of maintenance order. Constable Satlrcrley stuted two order! bad been made in 1916 for 5s per week and that there were arrears of £125 17s lid to February 4th. Courteney had a large family of his own, and was in poor eireumstunccs. The S.M. agreed to remit arrears, but Courteney was ordered to pay 5s towards the second child for the two years or so that the order had to run. Stanley Parker made an application for cancellation of maintenance order. Constable Satherlcy stated that Inhad known defendant for years, and known him to pay for some time. He had been out of work, and had a child to keep. His wife was said to be well_ to do and it was stated Parker had handed over £2OOO to £3OOO to her and therefore considered she should pay. Parker stated that he was in poor circumstances, and had done no good on commission business, having earned only £7 during the past six months. He had handed to his wife all his property prior to the divorce case, and he could not see his way now to pay anything. The property he gave his wife was 176 acres of dairying proper- ( ty- , j Mr Staveloy stated that Parker left I Wairarapa with a splendid name and j that the £IOO or so that he had on arrival in Otaki he invested in Gorge property which had proved a failure. The S.M. said Parker should not have married again, knowing he had an obligation to meet. He would, howevci, vary the order and make it 7s Od per week, to take effect from March Ist, and also remit the arrears. Alleged Dirty Cow-Bails. ' George Jarrett (Inspector of Dairies) v. A. W. Tews. —Charge of permitting 1 manure to remain within 30ft. of his cow shed, and (2) made no imme- ’ diate attempt to remove manure after f milking. . Mr Duukley appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Mr Jarrett stated he visited defendant’s place and found a manure heap ' within 3ft. or 4ft. ot' the dairy, while 1 things in general were unsatisfactory. Tews had been given every opportunity to comply with the regulations. 1 To Mr Dunkley: I called at about 10.30 a.m. and found the manure heap t near the drains of the milking shed. When f called I saw one of Mr Tew’s , men cleaning the floor, but part of tho , place had not been cleaned out for days, i Mr Dunkley said the defence was a . denial that the manure heap was close ] to the shed. The shed was a long one, j with a 30ft. square stock-yard, and , the manure was outside this 43ft. away from the cow-shed. 1 Defendant stated that the Inspector i called between 10 and 10.10 a.m. He ~ complained of too much manure being t about, but on being measured it was , found 43ft. away, whereas the regula- ;i tions provided for 30ft. I Mr Dunkley asked for an adjourn- j ment so as the S.M. could visit the p place. s Mr Tews, continuing, said that the r bails had been scraped out before the Inspector’s arrival, and two bails swept- y He did not think the Inspector looked f at the bails, all he wanted was the £ shed turned upside down. He (Tews) g had said ho would get tho heads. t from Wellington to inspect it—he considered the shed quite satisfactory, i The Inspector appeared to complain . about everybody. 1 William Bailey stated he was present when the Inspector arrived. He was } busy cleaning the sheds, having anit- t ed back from the factory shortly after E 10 a.m. He was in the midst of the , work when the Inspector arrived. Some , of the bails had been cleaned out. The 1 Inspector did not make a proper inspec* j tion—he did not appear to look at the j hails. 1 Mr Dunkley again asked that the j S.M. view the premises and thus decide the first case. In the second cose he < submitted “immediately” meant that , a thing must be done as soon as possible. ( Bailey had cleaned tho bails as soon as j possible and had done the necessary < work when the Inspector arrived. It 1 war. a well-known fact that Mr Tews ; inilk was of the highest quality. i The Inspector contended neglect had ] been shown at the shed, while there were only two men to attend to <o cows. The wood-work had not been scraped for weeks, while the bails " ere bad. The S.M. said it appeared to him the work of cleaning was in progress when the Inspector arrived. There yvas evidence that the things were not quite so up-to-date as required, and he thought a warning should be sufficient in one case, but the other ease would stand down till the promises were inspected. After the S.M. had viewed the premises he decided to adjourn the case to enable Tews to make slight improvements. George Jarrett v. Alox. Dixon. — Charge of failing to cleanse within four hours of being used, vessels, to wit an aerator and cooler. Mr Dunkley appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. The Inspector staked that he inspected the premises at 0.45 a.m. on lie 14th February. There were no utensils washed, nor had been washed for several days. On a previous occasion he warned Dixon about a dirty strainer. Mr Dunkley submitted that the aerator and cooler were cleaned by 11 a.m. Alexander Dixon stated that he was absent when the Inspector called. Ho had milked at 7.30, after which he served on his milk round. He had never had complaints made against him. He returned home at 10.15 on the morning in question, cleaned the cooler, etc., and never tear the Inspector.

To the Inspector: I supply between 60 and 70 customers and then take the remainder of the milk to the factory. The Inspector never complained about my strainer —in fact I don’t think the Inspector ever saw it. Ivy Dixon, daughter of defendant, stated she remembered the Inspector culling at about 9.15. He stayed about ten minutes. He asked if things had been washed and she said “no, but they would bo done as soon as father returned; ’’ The vessels were cleaned as soon as he came back. ! Mr Dunkley submitted that there was

u not sufficient evidence for a conviction. The Insjiector said all utensils should 4 be thoroughly cleaned before four ’■ hours. Ho felt confident the cooler had 0 not been cleaned the previous night. The S.M. said tho Inspector should 11 have been there previous to the using of the cooler. There was nothing to ' show it had not been washed. The case

J would therefore be dismissed. George Jarrett v. William Macdonald 1 —Charge of failing to cleunse milking *, vessels. I Mr Stavcley appeared for defendant 1 and pleaded not guilty. The Inspector stated he inspected the premises on February 14 and found the buckets, cooler and aerator dirty. The visit was made about 3.30. He had previously warned Macdonald. Defendant stated that the utensils complained of were cleansed thoroughly with hot water in the morning. A similar complaint had been made against him for unclean buckets, but the matter I j had been remedied. He had supplied j milk to factories for the past 17 years, j I To the Inspector: I have had my pre- ' mises registered for 17 years. j The S.M.: And using the same buck- j ets all the time! Charles Bevan stated he was a plum- J ber and was working at Macdonald’s on February 14th. He saw Mucdonald wash the buckets with hot water. This was about 10.30 or 11 a.m. He had 1 noticed Macdonald clean the buckets every morning he worked there. Hugh Macdonald stated he took his father's milk to the factory, and brought hot water back to cleanse utensils. The vessels were clean on the Inspector’s arrival. The S.M. considered the regulations hud not been complied with. The buckets should have been cleaned with hot water, then washed with cold water and dried. A fine of £2 and costs would bo j inflicted as a reminder. Alleged Assault. Irira Tewilcau (Hohipuha) v. Eota Hohipuha—Charge of assault. Mr Staveloy appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. Mrs Hohipuha stated that the case was between lier son and herself. She was lighting the fire when her son came in. She asked him to chop wood so as she could cook food for him and get him away to his work. Her son had a grudge against her and looked for argument. He said words which she did not wish to repeat —they were not fit to be hurled at a dog. He said ho would get hold of her head and shake it about, and had he been a man he would have had a fight. She seized the poker and made to strike him. He rushed at her and put her head on the floor. Ho banged it several times on the floor. Her grandchild Maggie pulled him away and asked him to desist. Her son-in-law, Ross, was in tlic house but never raised a voice in protost. Mrs Philips stated she saw defendant bump her grandmother’s head on tho floor. She tried to pull Rota away but failed. He used very bad language. She did not see her grandmother pick up a poker. Mr Staveloy said three different families lived in the house, and there was always trouble on account of the old lady’s violent temper. Ross Webby stated he lived in the house as Hohipuha’s will provided for t the relatives sharing it. He was present when tho trouble took place. It was not correct that there was no firewood cut. AVheu he got up Mrs Hohipuha was lighting the fire, and Rota said something which caused Mrs Hohipuha to seize the poker. Rota caught hold of the poker in its descent and both persons ftll to the floor. Rota Hohipuha, the defendant, stated: On the morning of the trouble his mother complained that no wood was chopped, and he replied that there was plenty of cut wood. Later his mother said he hud no right there, and high words followed. She seized the poker and was about to strike him. He caught hold of it and then she grabbed I him by the coat and both fell over. He ' never bumped her head on the floor. The S.M. said as the son had left tha house there should be no further trouble; he would therefore dismiss the charge, hopiug he" would bear no more about it.

Judgment Summons, A. Kofoed v. T. W. Latham. —Claim £4O 13s 4d.—Defendant stated that on an average he had earned £3 per week of late. It was untrue that he had bought a cow for £10; his wife had a | cow, pony, and trap. He was paying | £1 peT week for rent to Mr Sidey.—Or- | dered to pay 10s per month, in default . 28 days imprisonment. I Claim for Ford Truck. J. C. Milnes (Mr Dunkley) v. B. Deakin (Mr Putman) —Claim £44 Is 3d ( commission on a sale of a Ford truck. Plaintiff stated that arrangements were made for defendant to get a truck him but qn the day of appointment , Deakin went to Palmerston and secur-; c-d another. ' The S.M. said if Milnes was an agent the principal should sue, if a principal then Milnes could not claim commission. The present statement of claim was for loss of commission on a sale. Milnes pointed out that he had since sold the truck through an agent and therefore lost £ls in commission. The S.M. said Milnes could not proceed on the present claim, but might be able to claim for the less of the £ls. | A non-suit was applied for by Ml I -

Dunklcy and granted. Defendant wa, allowed 22s expenses and solicitor'! fee £3 3s. Civil. Judgment by default was given ir the following cases: — R. J. Staveley v Hema Whata, claim £32 12s 2d, costs £1 13s 6d, and same v. Iwikatea Meta, claim £l, costs £1 12s.