MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Shannon News, 17 August 1928, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

LEVIN SITTING.

. The monthly sitting of the Magistrate's Court at Levin was held yesterday, when Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., was on the Bench. , TERRITORIALS FINED. Maurice William Ootterill was charged that, on May 5, he failed to attend the camp of the Wellington West Coast Regiment, at Wanganui; also that, on July 18th, at Levin, he failed to notify the authorities of his change of address. Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. Sergeant-Major Ryan stated that he had sent Cotterill a notice of the camp, and it was returned about five ' days before the camp. In a letter, the defendant had said that he was going to the South Island. The Ser-geant-Major waited, ten weeks, and, 'aV he" received no further word from Ootterill, he wrote to the young fellow 'a emplover, asking for information a 8 to his whereabouts. The answer was that he was working at Ohau. Apparently he had not gone to the South Island at all. The defendant was an immigrant and probably did not quite know'the circumstances of the case. Constable Bagrie stated that Cotterill's employer spoke'very highly of him, and was satisfied that if the defendant got notice to attend another camp he would do so. In each case, a fine of £1 was imposed, with costs 12s on the first charge and 10s on the second. The Defence Department also proceeded against Samuel Hallamore, who ■was charged that, on May Ist, he- 1 failed to attend the camp at Wanganui. He pleaded guilty. Sergeant-Major Ryan stated that, on October 24th of last year/the defendant wrote to him from Waikanae, where he was then employed by*-the County Council, and stated that his address was there. Hallamore received camp notices for both camps, but did not attend them. The defendant said he had not received the notices, but the Sergt.Major stated that they were not returned through the Dead Letter office. A fine of £2 was-imposed, with costs 10s. The defendant asked for time to pay, as he was out of work. The Magistrate allowed him a month to find the money. DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE. A charge of having driven a motor * car on July Bth, at Manakau, while not being the holder of a driver's license, was preferred against Phoebe A Greig, who attended the Court and pleaded guilty. Constable Bagrie stated that, on the date in question, Mr 3 Greig was proceeding home by car to Reikorangi and there was a collision. It was then, discovered that she had no driver's license. "The circumstances of the accident did not suggest that the defendant was' in any way to blame for it.. She was on the correct side of the road; rain was falling at the time and the visibility was bad, and the othei car collided with Mrs Greig's. The defendant, who had been learning to drive, had since got a license. The penalty inflicted was a fine of lOsj with costs 10s. TRUANCY.

The Truant Officer (John Laughton) charged Richard Henry Pratt with failure to send a child to school on July 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th. Then Was no appearance of the defendant The Officer said he did not think there had oeen one week in the year when the child had attended the full term. Defendant was fined 10s, with cost. 1 , of a like amount. CATTLE GRAZING IN SHANNON. Two charges were laid by the Shan non Borough Ranger (J. Swindlehurst) against R. Pratt in respect of a cow being at large, one information relat ing to Vogel Street on July 19th and the other to Grey Street on July 26th. Mr E.' T. Moody appeared for the Bor-ough-Council, and the defendant ..wat not pre'sent. The Ranger stated that the defend ant had been convicted before, but 'not for some time. The cow had been at large throughout the month, and the defendant did not seem to have anj

land to keep it on, The Ranger had asked'the defendant, on several occasions, to get accommodation for the cow.. ' or else sell it.'

A fine of £l, with costs 10s, in each case was imposed. Mrs M. Davis was also charged on twt informations, these referring to tin wandering of two cows in Grey Street on July 26th, and in Stout Street on July 27th. The Ranger stated that the cows had been continually at large, and the do fendant had no ground to' keep them on. He had asked her to provide accommodation for them or sell them. The defendant had been convicted several times before. A fine of £l, with costs 10s, was imposed in each case. HARE THAT COST £5. The minimum fine provided by the Act, namely £5, was imposed, together with costs 12s, in the ease of Jack Fanning, who was charged that, on June 4th, at Makara, he took or killed imported game (a hare) without a license. Percy William Willson, Ranger for the Wellington Acclimatisation Society, stated that he saw the defendant shooting at Makara on the date named, and asked him for his license, .whereupon Fanning stated that he had left it at home. The Ranger made further inquiries, and found that the defendant had no license. He interviewed Fanning again, when he admitted the fact. MAINTENANCE CASES. Florence Elizabeth Sophia Jones proceeded against James William Liverpool Jones with an application for maintenance and guardianship orders. Mr D. Todd" appeared for the applicant, and Mr K. Adams for the respondent. In support of her application, Mrs

Jones stated that her husband left her on March 9th, 1927, without making ! any provision for her. She had three i children—a boy aged 18, a girl aged 15, and a girl aged five. The boy was I working, and she derived a little money from running four cows. In 19<27 her husband sent her £4 in April, £6 i in May, and £5 at the beginning of December. She wrflte to him about an instalment due on the house, and I he sent her £9 12s, which wasremitted to the State Advances Department. She did not remember ' having written to him this year for money. When he went away, he left some accounts owing, and she paid one of £6 odd for groceries. Cross-examined by Mr Adams, the applicant stated that, before her husband left her, he had been talking about going, but when he went it was without her knowledge. During his > 20 years' residence, in Levin he did not spend much. Witness had a quarteracre ~ section, also a half-acre section with the house. Her husband went to Bangatana, on the Main Trunk, and afterwards to Morrinsville. Witness had lost one of the four 'cows, as it had strayed. She kept abotit £4 fowls. She denied that her husband had put his money into the sections, which had been left to her out of her father's estate.

Mr-Todd said that, in a letter, which he had put into court, -the respondent made threats of clearing out and changing his name. Counsel suggested that an order of 10s a week for the wife and 10s each for two of the children be made.

His Worship made an order of 10s in respect of the wife and 5s each in respect of two children, remarking that if the respondent's health improved an application could be made to have the payment increased. The application for guardianship wsa granted. Costs £2 2s were allowed the applicant. - ■ ■ / '

Thomas E. Allen was charged with disobediance of a maintenance order made in favour of Annie Louisa Allen, £4 10s being claimed to July 2nd. Mr K. E. Adams appeared for the complainant, and Mr P. H. Harper for the defendant. The amount of the order was 30s per week, - and there were three children. •

Mr Adams stated that the defendant left in November, 1918, and for nine years he could not be found. Defendant had only paid £3 in nine years, and that was when he was arrested at Timaru. He had been earning £4 12s 6d as a grocer's assistant. Since being divorced, he had brought additional burdens on himself by marrying a widow with two children Of her own, to which family was added a child of the marriage. The Magistrate remarked that the defendant had had no right to take on further responsibilities when he had an order of 30s a week against him. The complainant stated in evidence that her : former husband had applied for a variation of the maintenance order. She was now living with her brother, but had no interest in his farm during his lifetime. Her only income was from the sale of a few eggs every week. Her son had been in hospital, and was not-yet able to work. His Worship stated that the case was not one for variation be/ore the coming-of-age. of the son in January next. The defendant was convicted of a breach of the maintenance order and sentenced to 14 days' .hard labour; the warrant to be suspended so long as he keeps up the order and pays 5s a week off the arrears. The plaintiff was allowed costs £1 Is. The application by the defendant for a variation of the order was refused, with costs £1 Is to Mrs Allen. CIVIL BUSINESS. UNDEFENDED CASES.

Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, for the amounts named, in tht following undefended cases: — D. Malcolm v. C. J. Olivecrona, £2 lis'l'd, costs 14s; S. B. Read v. D. S. Ferguson, £2 15s, costs £1 3s 6d; Allmand's, Ltd., v. S. Clifford, £26 6s, costs £4 15s 6d; Horowhenua County Council v. J. M. Johnson, £B9 6s lOd, costs £5 8s 6d; same v. Harry O'Donnell, £l4 2s 6d, costs £2 18s; W. R Lennie v. Sue Lee, £2, costs £1 3s 6d; N. D. Scortis v. William Waitere, £1 12s 6d, costs 9s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

Orders were made on judgment summonses as under: —

H. Nicholson to pay David Smart £3B 3s sd*at the rate of £2 per month; in default 28 days' imprisonment. S. Royal to pay the Joss School of 'Commercial Art £2.. ..4s at the rate of £1 per month; in default three days. Hcta Hori to pay T. and A. M. Verry £9 12 s 5d at the rate of £2 per month; in default seven days. Tuku Matakatea to pay T. and A. M. Terry £l2 18s Id at the rate of £1 per month; in default 14 days. No order was made in the eases of the Trade Auxiliary Company of New Zealand, Ltd., v. Harold Hudson, a claim on a judgment for £2 4s 3d; and Adam Burgess v. Harold Hudson, a claim on a judgment for £6 10s 9d. BULLOCK SOLD IN ERROR. A misunderstanding as to the identity of a bullock that was sold led to Ernest Morton Ryder proceeding against Sydney Easton and Maerua Farm, Ltd., with a claim for possession of. the animal, or the sum of £l2. Mr W. S. Park appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr D. Todd for the defendants. From the evidence of the plaintiff it appeared that the parties held adjoining properties and that at a time when the dividing fence was out of repair a steer belonging to Ryder got over on to Easton's place, and three of the latter owner's cattle came across to Ryder's. This was about last November, and each owner acquainted the other with the fact. Some time later plaintiff asked Easton where his (Ryder'») bullock was, and Easton stated that he had bought the animal in ques-

tion from Mr Milne, manager of - the Maerua farm.

Mr Park stated that Milne had sold the bullock to'Easton in the belief that it belonged to Maerua Farm, Ltd. That company had paid into Court the £6 which it received for the animal. Plaintiff stated that at the time of the transaction the b/illock was worth £l2, and to-day it' would be worth about £ls.

Johii M. Milne, manager of Maerua Farm, Ltd., stated that Easton came to him on the farm and told him about ■the bullock straying. Witness was not able to go over at the time, and, believing the animal t'o be one .of the company's steers, he offered it to Easton, the price agreed upon being £6. Witness had sold company steers, of which he had thought this to be one, in another quarter for about the same price. To have gone away to inspectthis animal would have meant stopping work with the tractor when he was getting the land ready for sowing. If he had inspected the bullock, he would have known it was not one belongingto the company. Plaintiff rang him up some time afterwards and asked him' if he had sold a bullock. On witness replving in the affirmative, plaintiff saidj "That was my steer." Witness then said to him, "I would not sell another man's steer. I thought it was one wo had missed." Later Avitness identified the bullock as one that had formerly belonged to the Moutere (afterwards Maerua) Run and then passed into Mr Ryder's possession. Evidence, of identification was given by William R. J. Miller, manager for the Hon. E. Newman. For the defence, Mr Todd said that Easton discovered the bullock straying on his property and noticed that it had the Maerua (or Moutere) earmark on it, and he went to see Milne about it, with the result that the bullock was sold to Easton. In giving evidence, Sydney Easton stated that there had been several stray cattle belonging to plaintiff and to Newman's estate, on his property. After the neighbours had taken away what they considered to be their stock, he discovered the bullock in question. When he saw Milne about it, the latter said it was worth about £6. Witness paid him the money and got a receipt. This happened early in February. He reckoned that £6 was the full market value of the beast at the time. He had bought bullocks that were older and just as well bred for £6 17s 6d. This bullock would not be worth more than £l2 now. When he sent in an account for renewing the fence between his property and plaintiff's the point about the bullock was raised by the latter. Defendant added that he had acted in good faith and had not bad any idea that the bullock belonged to any owner but the Maerua Farm, from whom he purchased it. In giving judgment, His Worship said he thought that the evidence before him showed that the value of the bullock was £lO, and he must put that value on it. Judgment Avas accordingly given for the plaintiff against Easton for this amount, with eosts £4 16s; Easton to have the right to uplift £6 paid in by the other defendant, or to credit it against the judgment.