LEVIN MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Shannon News, 29 July 1921, Page 3

LEVIN MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, JULY 38. 1921. (Before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M.) * A IRREGULAR SCHOOL ATTENDANCE. A. Doig was charged on the Information of John Laughton, attendance officer, Wellington Education District, with failing to send a child to school regularly, the attendance officer stating that the child had been absent on 51 occasions out of a possible 172. Defendant was convicted and lined 10s and costs 7s. BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER. Joe Williams pleaded guilty of being drunk whilst the subject of a prohibition order. 1 His Worship inflicted a fine of £l, with 7s costs. Defendant was given a month in which to pay, default a week’s imprisonment. LATE REGISTRATION. Walter Haseltine was charged on the information of the police with failing to register a. fire arm within the prescribed period. Constable Bagrie slated that defendant came to register a shotgun on July 5, being a month after the lime when registration should have been made. Defendant had frankly admitted that he was behind time in registering, and the case was brought as a warning to others. His Worship convicted defendant and ordered him to pa.y costs 7s. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by- default was given in the following civil cases: Harvey and - Co. v. F. T. Nicholson, claim £l9 19s, costs £1 7s; same v. Kita Heremaia, clann £2 14s 3d, costs 8s; D. Malcolm v. F. T. Nicholson, claim £4 18s 3d, costs 12s; Park and Adams v. Henry Burke, claim £5 12s 6d, costs £1 11s 6d; M. J. Suhan v. A. Durrani, claim £7 7s 6d, costs £2 0s 6d; Harper and Merlon v. Tiaho Roera, claim £3 ss, costs 13s. A PLOUGHING DISPUTE. - r A Narbey, farmer, of Levin, entered a claim against G. R. Gibbons, contractor, of Levin, for the sum of £24 s r; . made up as follows: Hire of plough £7, repairs to plough damaged by defendant, £7 10s, hire of plaintiff’s hors-' £2 10s, Hire of disc harrows £1 ss, cos; of - replacing two ploughshares £3 amount paid by plaintiff to complete ploughing' contracted to be done b, defendant £3. Mr Noble, of Master!on, appeared fo plaintirr, and Mr-Adams for • defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence that he employed defendant to plough certain land at the rate of 30s per acre. The plough belonged to witness, and defendant had hired it. * When the ploug! was returned it was m very had oi der, repairs costing £7 10s, in addition to two shares. Defendant had agreed to plough three paddocks, but threw up the job as he did not think he was getting enough and' wanted £2 pci acre. Defendant then went' on plough ing his own ground, using witness’s plough and horse. There was no agree ment- that he was to have witness’s plough and horse free. His Worship: Was there any agreement that- he should pay? ■ Witness: No. Morgan Reid stated that he took on the job of finishing plaintiff’s ploughing where defendant had knocked off. When he got the plough from Gibbonsit was in bad order, and had to b° brought in to Leyin to be repaired. Edward Kidd, Palmerston North stated that if a plough was properly handled it should not be damaged in the class of country ploughed. Tlic ground had been ploughed previously, and should not be hard to work. Joe Gibbons, the defendant, said he was asked by Mr Narbey to come and do some ploughing for him*, but witness said he had no plough. Narbey said witness could use his plough, am. an agreement was made for 30s per acre, Narbey to supply (he plough, Narbey supplied a horse also. Tin plough was in good order rigid u; to the time witness finished with if Witness had tlie ploughshares re-con-ditioned every iwo days during the work, as well as before he started. The ground was, very stony, and Hie ‘only pieces of ground left unploughed were those that die plough' would no* go inio. Mr Narbey had never objected to the use of the plough to turn over witness’s own ground. Witness had ployghed 13 acres of his own land.

To Mr Noble: Witness got as neat’ the fences as lie could when he was ploughing foV Narbey. It was part of the agreement that he was io have the .plough to do the work with. Alexander Laing,' contract ploughman, said 30s per acre with the use of a plough and horse was a fair price for ploughing, but not sufficient if fhe ploughman had to find plough and team. Cross-examined, witness said 2s per acre was a fair price for the use of a plough. A horse was worth 5s to 7s per day. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that plaintiff had most of his ploughing done for him by defendant,

and taking that into account, judgment would be given for £7, with costs £2 10s. . * CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

A claim for £lO for alleged damages to premises was entered by Edward Allmand, engineer, of Weraroa, against Latham and Hughes, motor mechanics, formerly of Weraroa. Mr Harper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Adams for the defence.

Edward Allmand, the plaintiff, stated that he was the owner of certain premises in Weraroa. He remembered meeting the defendants, and an agreement, was entered into between witness and the -defendants for the lease of the premises. They- occupied the premises for about eleven months, when Hughes asked that the agreement be cancelled, and witness agreed on condition that they left the place in good order. The key had been returned by post although the defendant Hughes 'was in Levin at the time. When witness went to inspect the premises he found the bench torn from the wall, window panes broken and fences knocked about.

In reply to Mr Adams, witness said he had no opportunity of inspecting the shop -until after the key had been returned. Witness did not know if defendants had taken the bench over in the goodwill from Barrett Bros., + he previous tenants. He estimated that it Would take £lO to put the place in the same state of repair as when defendants took it over. The fence had not beeir blown over, but lie believed had been used for firewood. The cost ot replacing the window would be £2. For the defence, Norman Barrett, motor mechanic, stated that he was formerly in business in Levin and occupied Mr Aljmand’s premises. Latham and Hughes bought witness out, and took over tenancy of the shop. The benches were put in the shop by defendant and were taken over by Latham and Hughes. counter belonging to the shop was used by them, but a plank used for enamelling belonged to the pain-tiff. Mr Harper stated that the bench being nailed to the walls became a fixture.

The evidence of H. R. T. Hughes, of the defendant firm, now of Dunedin, was put in. This stated that plaintiff gave them notice to quit on January *29, 1921, and they gave up possession on May 7, 1921. The workshop bench was one of the fittings taken over from (he previous tenants. So much was paid for general fittings, and these inmcluded the bench. He did not know if fiie bench was fastened to the wall or not, hut they always regarded it os their own property. I-fe did not assist j in removing the bench. The fence was in a rotten condition when they took* over the premises, and the. gate was missing. A section of the fence wa.j j, blown down by the wind. Two windows were broken when they left, and one when they took possession. His Worship said unless the original tenants (Barrett Bros.) removed their fixtures or made definite arrangements ahoilt them, they became the property of the owner of .the premises. He thought there had been some damage done; a window had been broken.and fence damaged: He would give judgment for plaintiff for £6, with costs £2 10s.