MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 2, Issue 134, 7 October 1913, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe—Thursday. (Before Mr F. V. Frazor, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default or consent in the following casos :—O. Penny (Mr J. G. Haddow) v. F. Barclay, £B, costs £1 16s 6d; Wily and others (Mr J. G. Haddow) v. Lapwood Bros, £7 12s Bd, costs £1 8s 6:1. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

J. IT. Henderson v. H. Sharp, claim £37 17s 4d. An order was made for the payment of tho amount and costs forthwith, iu default one month's imprisonment, tlio writ to be suspended for cue week. MAIL DELIVERY. L. G. Rogers, a post offico messonger at Pukekohe, pleaded guilty to having wheeled a hand-cart along the footpath in King street. Constable Wilcocks stated that the defendant though warned twice persisted in continuing tho practice. " We have been always used to coming along the footpath," was the excuse given by defendant, who admitted that he had been cautioned and told " that he would get six mouths."

" Oh, well, I won't give you six months," said the Magistrate, "but I'll tine you 5s and costs, aud don't do it again."

FAILING TO ATTEND DRILL.

"I thought that the four days served at tho camp were equivalent. to the night parades," was the excuse given by 11. Barker for not attending numerous parades. Sergeant-Major Hatt stated that he had spoken to defendaut who had taken no notice of his warning. Defendant further urged that he had been away when some of the drills had been held.

" When you are going to be away more than one hour's journey go and see the Sergeant-Major and get leave. There will be no trouble," was the advice of the Magistrate, who imposed a rine of lOs and costs. ALLEGED INDECENCY.

The case against E. F. Abbott (Mr C. A. Mahony) for committing 'an indecent act in a public place was adjourned, on the application of the accused, till the next sitting of the Court. A FENCING DISPUTE

Chas. Dromgool (Mr J. C. Dromgool) applied to Lave the dispute regarding a boundary fence with Mr H. 11. D. Wily (Mr Fitzhcrbert) determined by the Magistrate. Mr Fitzherbert said that plaintiff had served defendant with notice to fenco and defendant had served a counter-notice. Since the serving of the notices and prior to the issue of the summons the defendant had sold his property. The purchaser should be considered as he might not want the 6ame kind of fence as the plain.tiff desired.

Mr Dromgool opposed this as ho claimed that the defendant should have applied to have the purchaser joined as a third party or should have advised him of the notice served.

After argument the Magistrate adjourned the case for a fortnight to permit of the third party being considered, the defendant to pay costs of £1 Is.

A SOLICITOR'S GUARANTEE.

A case which occupied considerable time was one iu which H. E. R. L. Wily and others (Mr J. G. Hadclow) sued J. C. Dromgool for £1 17s 4d. This case arose out of proceedings in the Pukekohe Court on June oth in which the plaintiffs sued C. Dromgool, of Tuakau. Prior to the hearing of that case the plaintiffs issued an amended statement of claim which included an additional 17s -Id. The plaintiffs now claimed that when the judgment was obtained the defendant, who was the solicitor for Mr C. Dromgool, gave to the plaintiff's solicitor his personal undertaking that he would pay the sum of 17s 4d if judgment was asked for only on the original claim instead of the amended claim, and that upon this undertaking being given the sum of 17s 4d was omitted from the judgment. The plaintiffs further claimed the sum of £l for special damages.

Mr Dromgool objected to the claim on various legal grounds. A lengthy argument ensued as to the position of the ease.

During the argument His "Worship intimated that the claim for damages could not be upheld and Mr Hachfow withdrew this portion of the claim. This narrowed tho case down to 17s 4d and His Worship made several efforts to bring about an amicable settlement. He secured the agreement of the defendant to pay the 17s 4d, but he could not induce him to pay tho costs " Well," finally said the Magistrate, "if you'll pav the 1/sHd I'll pay the costs of 'issue, os." But these were not all the costs as Mr Haddow had a witness. So the Magistrate's good intentions were frustrated and the ease proceeded, plaintiff averring that it was the principle in the '"case which counted.

11. G. R. Mason, solicitor, deposed that in the case Wily and others v. C. Dromgool, judgment for the smaller amount was given on the promise of defendant that ho would undertake the payment of the difference between the original and the amended statement of claim. H. 11. \). Wily corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to the defendant undertaking to pay the amount.

For the defence, the defendant entered the box and denied that he had ever given a personal promise. Ho detailed the particulars of the case. Towards the conclusion of tho case tho question of including the 17s Id in the judgment was raised but was not allowed. He believed that then he may have said freferring to the 17s ld ; ''"That's all right. It will bo paid.'' Mr Dromgool said ho would like to secure the evidence of two Auckland solicitors who were present at the sitting of tho Omit iu question. Tho Magistrate did not third; it was likely that two solicitors who were not iuler< sled iu tho case would outweigh that of the evidence of the wituesses for the plaintiff. He suggested that tho defendant make arrangements with the plaintiff to settle tho caso. After a brief adjournment Mr Haddo w announced a settlement had been arrived at and the case was