MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 1, Issue 74, 7 March 1913, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

PUKEKOHE—THURSDAY

(Before Mr F. V. Fraser, S.M.)

CRUELTY TO ANMIALS. Mr H. Aider, Inspector for the Society for Prevention of Cru; lty to Animals, brought charges against Herman Twidle, of Tuakau (2 charges), for ill-treating a number of horse" hy causing them t.i Le worktd whilst in an unht state, and of ill-using a horse by working it whilst s ffrting with a sore back; against W. Clark in, of Tuakau, for causing hors s to he *o Ktd in an unfit state; and against J. Willis, C Ga?in and E Twidle, of Tuskau, f or working horses in an unfit condition.

Mr E. C. Matthews, who appeared (or the Inspector, explained that H. Twidle a-d Clarkin were the owners of the norses whilst Willis, Gavin and E. Twidle wer,' empl'iyeep. He gave d tail • of the Insp ctor's visit, and in all ccses no effort had been madi to tmel orate ihe suffering of the horses. "It was a pity," be said, "that people w.o worked horses when they weie-in an u ifit condition could not be maie t:> u-dergo t .e i-ame sufferings in punishment," M r Lundon, who appeared for the defendants, urged that it coJd not t e sabmitt d it was severe toil that was rt'fpineible for the sores, as ftur horses were ustd to pull a yard and a-half of metal. Ihe hjrees had only started work on Janua»y 16th. It was impossible, owing to the dust and the nature of the work, to prevent th* sore-\ ifie backs of the horses were washed twice a day. The defendants had b=en put to considerabh expense and he asked the Magist-ate to m3ke the fines ss light ts possible. The Magi trate, in fining 'he defendants, said that freqientlv ca es of this nature happened through thoughtlessm ss rather than intention. but it did not make any difference to the horse. An example must be maie. He wou!! fi ie H Taidle on the first charge £5, wi'h costs £1 16s, and on the second 5s with corns £1 8s; W. Clarkin, £5 with costs £1 16s; J. Willis, ss, costs £1 5a 6d; C. Gavin, ss, costs £l 5s 6d; E. Tjvi 'l3, ss, costs £1 5s 6d. TUAKAU BAZAAR. An aftermath of the recent baziar at 'i'uakau, in aid of the Cath r lic Church, came before the Court whir. P. E. Diomgool was charged with two breach's ot the "Gaming Act, 1908."

Constable Willcocks explained that the breaches had been committed thruugh ignorance of the law. A license for an art union had been issued, but articles which could not be regardd as "works of art" were raffled. He did not desire to press the charges, but brought them as a warning.

The defendant was convict d and discharged. A TUAKAU CASE.

Three young men, reaid nts of Tuakau, named Thomas Walker, Charles Dromgool and James Drom-' gool were charged with on or about January Ist that they did at Tuaknu damage a waggon, the property of Mr B Geraghty, by removing a wheel from the said waggon ard rolling the wheel into a creek; T. Walker was charged with removing a gate, the propeity of Allan Smith; Charles Dromeool of removing a gate, ths property of T. Miller; and James DromgoM of r< moving a gate, the property of J. Batkin.

Mr J. Lundon appears! for the accused, who pleaied not guilty un account of the illness of Constable Moure, one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution, the police appliei for a remand. Mr Lundon opposed the remand unless the constable could give personal evidence (f admission by the defendants. This he could not. He (counsel) applied to have the ca-e heard ai far as it would go. If the evidence was considered by the Magistrate to be sufficient to establish a case an adjournment could ue granted to admit of the attendance of Constable Moore.

After some argument the police repealed their application for a remand.

Mr Lundon pointed out that tne police cases rested, it appeared to him, on the evidence of two witnesses who were implicated. These witnesses might decline to give evidence. Then the police ca-e would fall to the ground and his clients would be put to heavy cost. Constable Willcocks intimated that if the witnesses referred to tuok this stand ha would have to ask to have them joined as accused.

Mr Lundon: You can take out two fresh charges. But sil this has nothing to do with my' client 3. It will not bring evidence agair.st them.

Finally, afier further discussion, it was agreed to take formal evidence to free certain witnesses. A. Srcith and 1. Miller, being sworn, gave evidence that their galea had been removed. The case was then adjourned until the next sittings of "the Court. A HAY TRANSACTION. R. Glasgow claimed from P. Henry and Son the sum of £l6. Mr | A. E. Skekon appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Haddow fur defendant. Mr 3kelton applied for permission to amend the statement of claim, which rtduced (he amount to £6. Mr Haddow objected He did not mind the alteration of the amount, but he did the wording. Mr Skelion taid no objection could be taken to tne amendment. He thought if te wire allowed to proceed Mr Haddow would not object. Mr Skeltori explained the position, which Mr Haddow accepted, lhe plaintiff's claim was that hj? sold ti the defendant SJtona of hay. t was first arranged that it sh old be cartea overland to Pukekohe. Subsequently it was agreed, on account of cost, to ship it down the Waikatn river to Mercer and then rail it to Pukekohe. This was done and defendant ssnt it on to Auckland. It was claimed that it was a bona tide sale, and that defendant was not acting as agent. Paintill', in his evidence, stated defendant agreed to take the hay. Sub cquently defendant offered him, by wire, £2 per ton on lail tu Pokekohe. This offer was accepted. The hay was ddivertd. He received word that ths hay had been con-

demned as bad. but took no notice as h° hgd sold to defendant. Subsequently t'eie was a dispute over tf*e piymen', t lough plaintiff admitted to him in conversation that it had been a straight-out s-le. The hay wai in good < r.icr when put 01 ihe boat. Defei dant suggested, he btlie wd, the water can iage.

Evidence was given by S. Nicholls and J. Roberts as to condition of the bales whin shipped. .Vir Hatid w sud the case for the defence was that the hay was tak"!n by d.fe dant as agent for the plaintiff. Defendant never saw the hay, and as a bu iness man it was hardly likely he wculd purchase anything he Ind not seen. There was t othwg i i the correspondence to show that the d fendant had made a purchase, but on the contrary showed that defendant was acti r g as agent. Further, it would be shown that the was rotten 'when it reached Auckland, an l it was contended it had never betii properly covered. The defendant gave e.idence that he offered to sell th* hay for tne plaintiff in Auckland. He arianged with Mr Allen, of Auckland, ti send the hay to Mr Wheeler at £2 10s jer ton. As a result of plaintiff spying he was unable to git anyore to cart the hay, be agreed to arrange for its transmission by water to Mercer. Wh°n his agent refused delivery, <n account of demurrage charges, he, acting for plaintiff, disposed of it. The reason he q loted plaintiff £2 per ton, instead of the £2 10s offered, was to cover freight from Pukekohe to Auckland and commission, and because plaintiff wanted a pri:e at Pukekrhe. He did nit believe the Utter, which the plaintiff stated he had received from him, ha'i ever teen written.

The Magistrate, at this stage, stated that as far as the case had con=> he did rot, in the absence of the letter ulied on by the plaintiff, think there had brei a straight-out sale. But as an agent defendant had gone beyond his contract, which was for sale at Pukekohe There also appeared to be secret commissions fnte'ing into the sale, to which the plaintiff was entitled. He did not think that defendant had acted dishonestly. After argument between the counsel engaged as to proof of the condition of the hay and as to who was responsible for the railing of the hay to Auckland, the hearing of the evide c? was proceeded with. Evidence was 'given by W. F. Allen and J. Wheeler, produce brokers, of Auckland, thit the hay was rotten on its animal ii Auckland, and that this state could not have been brought about in * few days.

The Magistrate said there was no necessity to call further evidence on this point The plaintiff, recalled, stated he never gave auy instruct! ns where to ronsian the hay. The defendant attended to thi".

Mr Haddow: Your Worship has remarked about secret conmissions. All the commissions given are shown in the account sales. Mr iSkelton: But he did not say anything about these to the plaintiff prior to the sale. The Magistrate said the question of deiivery must be waived, as he was satisfied that the defendant, in giving instruction* to the river peopl , hai orderel them to rail the hay to Auckland. He beli-ved the hay was rott-n and bad before being shipped. He • was satisfied that defendant and Mr Allen did their best after refusal of delivery of the hay. He did not think the defendant had done anything intentionally dishonest, but the law of contracti had to ba carrisd out. The fairest way would b3 to take the price which was got for the hay in Auckland. Mr Skelton: i elect to take a nonsuit. I believe we can yet establish a case of a sale. A non-auit was granted with costs, £5 6s, against plaintiff. DEBT CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following undefended cases:— R. -"Pilkington (Mr H. G. R. Mason) v. M. Haitneady, claim for £1 12s 4d, co-«ts £1 7s; same v.' J. Burke, claim £2 13s 2d, costs 10s; Green ard Colebrook (Mr H. G. R. Mason) v. Thomas Martin, claim £H Is 4d, costs £2 2s 6d; same v. A l. McMath, claim £7 17s, costs iss 6d; same v. Wi Mackay, claim £2 3s, costs £1; A. P. Home (Mr H. G. K. Mason) v. E. G. Spencer, claim £4 las 6i, costs 10s. The casa of E. P. Tapper v. William Taupo, claim £3l 2s sd, was adjourned by consent.