MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Shannon News, 18 January 1924, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MONTHLY SITTING. Mr J". L. Stout, S.M., presided- at tire monthly sitting of the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court held in Levin yesi lerelay. UNREGISTERED APIARY. C. A. Spring, of Shannon, was charged by H. W. Gilling, Inspector .of Apiaries, that being thje owner of an apiary Ihq did fail to.register under the Apiaries Act. Defendant pleaded guilty. The Inspector stated that defendant, who had been keeping bees for some years, had failed to register under the Act. He had registered in 1917, but not in 1921 or 1923. He was bringing the case mainly for publicity purposes as there 'seemed to be a good'deal of ignorance regarding the regulations. He would therefore press for a nominal penalty only.' Defendant stated that Hie had been ignorant of the fact.that he had to register every three years, until he received a 'summons in the case. He had no wish to ievade the regulations. The Inspector said that notice had been given by Tadvertisement and postcard. A fine of 10s and co«ts 12s was imposed. _ , , SHANNON MAINTENANCE CASE.

A case in which -Maggie Ann Taylor Turner applied, for a variation of a maintenance order against her husband, Charles Turner, of Shannon,, on the ground of ill health, was adjourned until February 21st. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. John Davies (Mr Blenkhorn) v. R. W. Gordon, £lO 16s, 9d. costs £2 14s: Thomas Bevan (Mr Adams) v. Burton Charles Waldegrave £4O 13 s 4d, costs £4 Is 6d. EXECUTORS CLAIM FOR DEBT. Arthur Crowe, of Levin, and Henry Kenyon Walton., of Koputaroa, farmers, executors in the estate of Alexander Peter Crowe, of Levin, -settler, deceased, claimed from Frederick Archibald Fulton, of Takapau, for £IOO alleged to have been lent by deceased to defendant, plus £.lB interest at,.6 per Mr Blenkhorn appeared for plaintiffs; and Mr Adams for defendant. Mr Blenkhorn. in opening the case, stated that the written evidence of the defendant was to the effect that deceased had forgiven the debt. Henry Kenyon Walton, the plaintiff, stated that he was one of the executors under the will of the late A. P. Grow, with whom *he (had been on very good terms. Witness had frequently transacted business for decensed. Deceased had told nun m February,-.1923, that he had lent defendant £IOO but as he had such a had sea-son'he did not intend to press him for it. Deceased did not give witness the impression that he intended to forego the debt. This was in February 1922 that was after Dcceinbrr, 1921, in which the defence alleged the arrangement to forgive the debt had been come to. ~-■-.,„ a In reply to Mr Adams witness admitted that the money had first been lent in 1919 and the debt had been renewed in 1920. . The evidence of defendant taken previously was put in. , ■ The Magistrate thought the evidence of the defence that deceased had said defendant need not worry about the debt was insufficient to warrant the m-wa-s insufficient to warrant the infer, ference that he intended to cancel it. Plaintiff was therefore entitled, ™ judgment for the amount claimed, £llß, plus costs £l3 9s.