S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 6 April 1923, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before J. Logan stout, Lsq., S.M.) Claim for Goochs. T. A. King (Mr Staveley) v. L. M. Devonshire (Mr Dunkley), claim £b 10s fid for goods supplied. The defence was a denial that the money was owing, it being stated in evidence that amounts owing had been paid. Judgment was given for 14- Gd.

Claim for Damages. Douglas Black more (Mr Staveh-y) v. Archie ftmith (Mr Duukloy), claim £l4 damages. Plaintiff stated that he was passing through Otaki while repairs were being effected at: Hannah’* building, and owing to timber being unloaded had to pass by Mr Smith’s horse. in passing the animal it Lit him, tearing his coat as v eil as the muscles of his arm. In consequence of the injury he could not work for three day , but being nine miles from town did not visit a doctor. Arthur Blsickmorc gave corroborative evidence. IVi Gordon stated that b»- knew the horse, and knew it to snap while being groomed, but had never seen it bito a ii yon o. At this stage Mr Dunkley applied for a non-suit, holding it had not been proved that the defendant knew r.};e horse to be of vicious habits*. The S.M. agreed and granted tlie apj plication. I Alleged Breach of Dairy Regulation?. Inspector of Dairies v. A. IV. Tows--Charge of permitting manure to remain within 30ft. of iris cow-died. Di.-miL-sed. This was a case he'd uve; from last Court day to allow iji*• >cM. to iuspect the locality.

Breach of Railway Regulations. Police v. Jack Nee liars —Charge of quitting ;t train while in motion Fined . 10s, costs 14s Od. Police v. R. .J. Ryder.—Charge of driving a vehicle over the taihvav lino contrary to Statute.- -Fined £os, costs 14s 6d. Theft. A juvenile was charged with the theft of two rings, one valued at 4<)s and the other at 45*.—Case adjourned for six months, lad to be under the supervision of the probation officer. Civil Cases. The following cases went by default: Margaret Quill v. J. S. Adams, claim £ll 10s Id, cost., 21'-; Mmma Mitchell v. J. S. Adams, claim £4 14s, costs P> Od; J 5. Fisher v. I’. Jenkins, claim £37, Its lid, costs £4 11s Od; G. S. Sharp v. J Charles Bell, claim £2, co-r, 24s Od: A. jM. Dunkley v. H. Cornish, claim £., costs 24s Od; H. B. Wise v. D. Coart!»ey, claim £lO la Od, costs £'J; Michehn lyre Co. v. Ayre Bros., claim £lO4 i ' J ~ 2d, cost.- £0 4s; A. W. Roberts v. 1 T °pi Maaka, claim £l4 0s id, costs £2 | 19s. , Judgment Summonses. H. H. Olliver v. T. Stewart, claim £lO 3s.—Ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default 14 days' imprisonment. R. J. Pori and Odiirt and Co. v. H. Tatar,;,, claim £2O 5s lid.—Ordered to pay IP, per week. W. li. Simms v. Joplin and Co., claim £lO Is.—No order. Arti": CJ ~ V £ £2d Co. V. Joe A yre. claim £l3 11'. —Ordered to par amount forthwith in default 14 days’ imprisonment. W. Coopt, v. Wallace, claim £3O 19s 5d. —Ordered to pay amount forthwith, in fieiauit 23 days ’ imprisonment.