Magistrate's Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 72, 29 March 1904, Page 4

Magistrate's Court.

UEW PLYMOUTH. MONDAY ttARCH 28. (Before Mr R. L. Stanford, 5.11.) CIVIL CASES. Wm. Boberts v. W. H. McKollop Claim £2 for balance of cost of a Watch sold at Waitara. Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount {tainted and costs ss. Weston v. Dalton.— Claim £5 7s. Mr Weston for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed and CO«te £1 3s 6d. Henry H. Ford v. Jphn Kendall.— Claim £2. Mr Grey (Messrs Wilson and Grey) for defendant. Judgment (or plaintiff by default for amount claimed and costs 10s. Huhia Mateae v. Hone Tuhata, otherwise called John H. Dainoa.— Claim £ll 10s received by defendant to use of plaintiff. Two sections had been leased by Hone Tuhata, and he had drawn rents. The piaintifl now alleged that the rent of one section should have been paid to her. For the plaintiff's case, Mr Hutchen called

A. Gamlin, butcher, of Inglewood and Waitara, who stated he rented the 25 acres, at £5 for the first year, and £0 per annum for each of the three successive years. Section 69 was much mora valuable than section «8, but he was chargvd equal rents for them, George Taylor, the husband sf the plaintiff, said he had asked Mr Gamlin now much rent had teen : pant to Tuhata, so that he could sue for its refund. He had ulso told Mr Gamlin that he would not interfere with his tenancy until the term of four years was completed. His Wife's name was Huihi, not Kuhia ,JSl WeSton P° int « l out that the defendant was only using the land and - drawing rent until Huihi's title could be established. There was no attempt at wrong practice. He called • Hone Tuhata, the defendant, who •tated that he had admitted a misl*"» in obtaining the title to this •SSL*"? ° nly » w "'t«d the gazetting of the change of titlo in fav- " ™. r °J V? when he had ar"*V>d that Mr Gamlin should gf™ . "Phis tenancy. Section 68 wasalmost useless without 69 Defendant said he wm, W iu illg to re _ nmd a reasonable sum J?t 7**2 ***"* ,or on adjournment, in order to introduce as a wltaei* Mr Boswell, who had formerly leased and paid rent for the properties in ouestion. His Worship said that at present til 2& n _v WaS * scW « n y against the defendant. He thought the plaintiff was entitled to half the money received as rent. Counsel then argued certain points *» the case.

rf™£ W £f p . BaW there was no . though not perhaps for the ful amount. £3B had come to Damon for two «ecHons, one or which was t^L^ 9 COBtro1 ' and one wl >*h he »oitgJrt was m his hands legally b»twh.c„ ultimately was p?ov£ He did not think that - ptatatiff was entitled to half the amount paid, so would give Judg! mart for £7. s ,Mr Weston did not think that the , plaintiff was entitled to the interpreter s fee, since Mr Walker was «»ly a second-class interpreter, and not competent to translate documents. - J«f. Worship saM the objection come too late. Costa for plaintiff were riven •- * £"?. 7*** £ ,f is - '"terpreter-s fee toTJL VS*" . lU ' application n-T^r 1 Co - v - Robe" Hart - 2*%J*£" coals. Mr Richmond »« platetiffa, Defendant admitted £J? £j* * CO » tOT claim for «»gef- He also produced a recpint tot £3 on account. pt Hie Worship to W . defem} t h ■ sy • eparately te * *>£ ■ fcat«Sle5 k ; n P " , ' nt " rs ' ■"wo"**. ■ Ss TJT bee " credited - and. the jWwed fQ» was the balance of !i^ ■ nmo,mt Ployew of plaintiffs. They gave cadence that Westport slack ad to defendant at 28s per ton or M. pes half-ton. Ko mention was mane of Hokati eoal.

_M> Weston stated, on behalf ofdefendant, that Reid had refused to ma the slack at 14s per ton when :.- other people were present, but afterwards promised to supply at that fate. Directly defendant received the Account he disputed it. Defendant stated that Itcid had offered Urn Westport slack coal at 14s pot ton, and Mokau at 7s 6d per ton. He bad bought Westport slack from Me Todd at 14g per ton. Kcid told not to make the price publio. Counsel submitted that the question was n conflict of evidence. His Worship said that this was hardly the case. Each witness had toM all he had heard. He considered defendant's statement a true account of the arrangement. He gave judgment for defendant, with costs. McGregor v. Bonos and Averill. Claim £3 for balance of purchase money of a mare sold by plaintiff to defendants. A counter claim was entered for £3, on the ground that « warranty was given that was untrue that the animal was then sound and quiet in harness. Mr Wilson u|tpeared for plaintiff and Mr Quilliam (or defendants. The counter clahn was taken first, : - M» QuiHlam stating that the £3 claimed as a set-off did not represent the full damage caused by inconveniences from the mare's antics. .Bones, one of the defendants. W*S put iato the box, and stated that McGregor had, brought the mare to the farm. The price was - £lB, which defendants considered rather much. McGregor said she had been used in carting milk, was sound as a bell of brass, and quiet as a sheep. They told McGregor that they would take his word. When the mare was delivered this witness took her to get harnessed. Sit operation to which she seemed unused. When the mare was put into « gig she cantered off, and would not stand. Next day she was put Into the dray. She kicked, plunged, reared, got tangled in the shafts, and capsized both defendants out of tfce cert. In n subsequent trial she was even worse, and landed herself ;. tn tho ditch. Then they came into town and saw the plaintiff. They invited him to come round to the stables, and there four men were needed to harness the brute. She tad bolted four times since, lie had not paid the balance because the norse did not come up to plaintiffs description and was not reliable in harness. To Mr Wilson : The horse had •_played up" on nearly every occasion that she had been used since she waa purchased. The mare was workedtwo or three times a month. The , deposit.was paid about a fortnight wl£t r purchftse - He did not know worked for a couple ZfgZX Mr Ju,y ' h,,t *• iid m£Xu tho . oth * r *femlam. gave evidence similar to that of the P«»ious witness. When Mr McGregor assisted to put the mare in on *ne-occasion he "went white, and m ? iTe ?" Wihlcss ° n <**l to tend It back to Mr McGregor for *IJ, as it was unreliable. ■ J, Coonett, who had employed defendants at Bell Block, gave evidence tfcat they were competent drivers for . tarra, work—not experts, of sourse> ,;J* dH not consider the mare sound harness.

To Mr Wilson I Had driv«n the mare into towoi She went fairly well, but would not stand. She was also fractious, and was dangerous as a gig-horse. Defendants were competent tu drive what they agreed to purchase—a reliable horse. William 11. Jury, livery stablekeeper, of New Plymouth, was had worked the mare, stated that two men were necessary to 'harness her. After two months' oaily work she was still unaafe. If she were quiet in harness she would be worth £2O, but was now worth £lO. Even after going two trips to Parihaka in & week she was fractious. W. Fuller, a farmer at Tarata, gave evidence that he had owned and worked the mare for two years. She was satisfactory in both single and double harness. She gave no trouble.

His Worship : Did you drive her over the Zig-zag ?

Witness : I drove her over the Purangi zig-zag, which is worse than that at Tarata.

To Mr (Juillinm : The mare brought ten guineas at auction. Mr McGregor, the plaintiff, said he bought the mare for £l2 from Mr Seamark. He tried her and found her "a nice mare in harness." There was nothing wrong with her, and when ho said she was quiet he believed it. Counsel addressed the court.

The Magistrate said the question was whether the horse was reliable or not. There could not be a shadow of doubt that the horse could not be called a reliable horse. Judgment was given for defendants, with witnesses' costs £l, counsel's fee £1 Is, court fees 13s. The court rose at 5 p.m.