Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FEILDING COURT.

(Before Mr Thompson, SM)

W. T. Pearson. M. R. Lochhead, Mariia Oliver and W. L. Sherwill, were convicted on charges of failing to connect their premisse with the drainage system. Each was fined 5s and 17s Od"costs. Mr Pryor appeared for Feildiug Borough Council. Undefended cases; Redwood & Co. v. K. C. Bottcher, claim £3 11s, costs 10s; George Turnbull v. Frank Nossiter, claim £IOO 16s 3d, costs £7 6s; A. Richmond y. H. O. Bottcher, claim £1 7s 6d, costs 6s; A, H. Sutton v. G. P. Gibbs, claim £7 4s, costs £1 6s 6d ; J. E. Lewis v. Alfred Parker, claim £ll 8s 4d, costs 10s; J. P. Amor v. Charles Hapua, claim £3 18s 6d, costs 10s 6d ; M. A. Gibbons v. Carl Zimmerman, claim £4 10s, costs 10s; S. W. R. Evans v. O Pollard, claim £9 16s, costs £1 18s 6cl; David Younger v. K. McKenzie, claim £lB 2s JJ6d, costs £1 10s 6d; R. Quedley v. F. Adams, claim 17s 6d, costs' 9s; Smith & Co. v. Henry Wiggins, claim £3, costs £1 8s 6d ; F,. Buderus v. J. E. Hall, claim £3, costs os. Judgment summons; — Alfred Bade v. Thos. N. Jackson, claim £l4 3s 8d. —Amount to be paid forthwith or 14 days imprisonment. F. J. Saxby v. O. J. D. Skinner, this is an application for the re-bear-ing of a case brought against defendant for wrongfully impounding a horse, more than one mile from boundary of Feilding Borough, on which charge Skinner had been convicted. The application was made by Mr Sandilands cn the ground that Section 155, Public Works Act, gave power to any person to impound stock off the roads. Council for Mr Saxby that the words “other persons” referred to local bodies or persons acting for them. ' His Worship accepted the broad interpretation of the Act referred to by remarking that Skinner was perfectly within his rights as a private person but not as a ranger. The application was dismissed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RAMA19080319.2.11

Bibliographic details

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9098, 19 March 1908, Page 4

Word Count
332

FEILDING COURT. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9098, 19 March 1908, Page 4

FEILDING COURT. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9098, 19 March 1908, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert