LEVIN MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Shannon News, 19 December 1924, Page 3

LEVIN MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

... CIVIL.',GASES. I. ; , At .Uio'.Le.vito, Magistoute b Cuu.rt this ..morning, before Mr J. 1,. staut, S.M., in: the i olio wing cases, judgment was--’given the -plaintill toy .default:— " W. H. Gunning-and,-Co. y. H.-Craw, •£5 T7S‘Bd,i with costs: ±ll. 11s 6d.-W/H.-Gunning-and’Co., v, J. Stew- • art/ r £4 2s 6d/ costs £1 12s-6d. ; //'S'. G'.'‘THoihpeon'- v.“J‘.''Muinro; T 9 10s; costs-£l'l3s 6d. '■'*.■■/• ■>■ Harvey and Co., Ltd., v. H. Stocking, £4O. 6S,,.costs .£4 3s 6d. . S. N- Stillwell "V. A: Cooper, £9 14s 3d, ctosts. £l’ 16s 6d; G. D. Hamilton v. Romeo Kmgi, £1 15s lOd, costs £2 13s.' i Millie and RocMort v. E. Barnett, £l4 9s lOd, costs £2 14s. S. E. Aldwmckle v., Pahi’ Watson, £1.2 is 4d, costs £5 2s. ‘ Charles Blenkhorn v. TiUlti McDonald, £ll, costs. £2 14s. ' ( Clias. Turner v. P. Kirionu, £l, costs £2 16s. JUDGMENT/ SUMMONSES'.

E. D. Bell V. W. Efpai'ima, £2O 10s Id, costs £1 lls.'6d, to be paid at the rate of £1 per month, in default 21 days. E, D. Bell v. Poto McGregor, £27 13s 7d, costs £1 11s 6d, an -order for payment- at the rate of £2 per month, in default 28 days. ’ W. J. McGrath y. I}. J. White, £9 8s Bd, costs 15s 6d, to toe paid* at the rate of £1 per montth, in default seven days. . / John Avery and Thos. Avery v. .Clifford Patrick Francis O’Regan, £4O 9s Id, costs £1 11s 6d, tq be paid ut the rate of £2 per mouth, in default 28 duys. H. J. H. Parsonson v. Luke Perawiti, £l2 9s 7d, costs £i Is, to toe paid at the rate of. £2 per montli, in. default 14 days.' Gordon and Gotch, Ltd., v. C. L. McMinn, £4 Bs, to ibe paid before January 19th, 1925, in default 7 days. . Jack Thompson v. Tuku Miatalvatea £6 15s 6d; costs 15s. 6(1, order lor the amount at the rate ol £1 per month, in default 7 days. TRUANCY CHARGE,

Pat Horae, a native, charged with failing to send Ins son, aged 12, to school, was fluGd 10s. and costs 7s. SHOOTING PROTECTED GAME. ■Percy ‘William Willson, representing the Wellington Acclimatisation Society, proceeded dgoiinst Claude Eiioko, for that on November 20 at Oliau lie did have in his possession a protected native itoird, tq wit a pukeko. Defendant, who pleaded gmlty, was fined £2 and costs 225, in default 14 days.' ' ' WANDERING STOCK CASES, j. Thompson for allowing three cows to wander on South Manakau Road, was fined 10s, costs. 9/6. W. Falloon, charged on two counts of allowing three cows, to be at large on the Manakau Road, was. fined 10s and costs. 9/6 on the first case, and £t and costs 7s on the second. John Kuiti, on a charge, of allowing three'cows to toe. at large on the Muhunoa West Road, was. fined 10s, costs ■l2s ■ - L. Daroux, similarly charged in respect to two horses, was fined £1 with costs 12s. . , ' (Peter King, for allowing 4 covvs to be at large oil the Beach Road, Manakau, was fined 10s, costs 12s. , F. McHardy, being the. owner of cows found Wandering , on the No-rin Manakau road, was fined ffis, costs

7 s • A. Scholes, being the l owner of 2 cows; found Ot large on the South Manakau Road, was fined 10s, costs of maintenance ORDER. William Joseph Butler for disobedience of a maintenance order, wasconvicted and do one month’s imprisonment with hard amour, warrant to'be suspended _so long as instalments are kept up and £">i per month are paid, off the. arrears, amounting to £2,1 T , CLAIM FOR POSSESSION pi DWELLING, William Henry Wpollett .claimed f rom J. Munno the sum of £29 IQs, owing for; rent, and the possession of a dwelling. Mr Blenkhorn appeared for the plaintiff. , ■■■ ■ , +llQ The. defendant, who admitted the claim, stated that he. had made- an offer tq pay £2 per month off. the account, Which offer had not been accepted. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that the case was not an ordinary one. The premises were such that the. defendant ; was. able to keep a cow, and the rent was only 10s per week, but was in arrears.. The Bench held that under the provisions of t)he Property Law Act, in the. case of an irregular lease, it. had to be proven that there was. a legal right jof re-ontry. The only thing open’ to the plaintiff was. tq %ive' a month’s notice tq quit. The noint was. a rather interesting one, as tne average property-owner was of the opinion that the failure to pay rent constituted a right' to re-entry. This was not so, however, and all he could do was to. give, judgment for the amount claimed and advise that the defendant be. given a month’s notice, when action for possession might be taken if necessary.