MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 79, 2 December 1914, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

B/4 Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M

POLICE CASKS,

C. Ammond charged with gambling on Hihitahi railway premises was fined 20s and costs, 7s. John Cross, for a breach of prohibition order was fined 20/ and costs 7/ in default seven days imprisonment. Ernest Nichollg charged with bis fifth offence of drunkenness, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. N

Norman Me Alin don and William Smith, second offenders were each fined 20/ in default seven days. A first offending inebriate was convicted and discharged.

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. In the following cases judgment was given by default: —Jas. Cartier (Mr. Ongley) v, Tawaki Wereha, claim £2 14s 6d, costs 19s; W. Mcßae (Mr. Ongley) v. J. Drent, Moawhango, edaim £9 10s, costs 23s Gel; James Cloud, Moawhango (Mr. Lcughnan) v. Pol Chase, claim £47 Is. costs £4 Is (id; Nelson Denness (Mr. Ongley) v, Wm. Bales, claim £2 Os 3d, costs 3s; J. C. McKay (Mr. Ong: ;y) v. D. MeKearney, claim £4 13s, costs 10s; C. E. Darvill (Mr Loughnan) v. T. Neagle claim £2 11s 4d, costs 10.:: F. J. Harris (M.r Loughnan) v. C. R. Currie, claim £42 IGs, costs, £2 14s DEFENDED CASES. G. H. Robinson claimed 13s wages due from J. Phillips (Mr. Hussey). The defence proved to His Worship’s satisfaction that the money had been paid, in fact over paid and judgment was f° r defendant with court costs. Margaret Quinlan, Winiata (Mr. Lcughnan) claimed £2, the value of a calf, from Patrick Brosnahan, Wiuiata (Mr. Hussey). Plaintiff, in the box, said she had two bull calves with which she had made an exchange with defendant for two heifer calves. Witness had looked after Die bulls but one died. Defendant later took charge rf the other. Some seven months later defendant had seized one of uie heifers for which she was now claim-

The defendant stated he had made the exchange and plaintiff had received the two heifers from him. Under a week later he has taken away one of the bulls, but when he called for the other plaintiff told him it was dead'; She did not tell hi.n it was dead when he took the first one. . His wife had later taken one of the heifers to replace the dead bull calf. Mr. Hussy in addressing the court submitted that plaintiff had received two calves, defendant had received one and had later taken hack qiie of the two received by plaintiff. Hig Worship conidered that defendant was in the wrong ii seizing the heifer calf. It was his oily course i? sue fo the loss of the bull calf through ‘ negligence, whic he bad not done.