MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 224, 27 October 1909, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

There was not a .tingle judgment by default ill yesterday morning s Court s : tt ! ng. There was'a short list of cases i-i.iifessed or paid into Court, and two defended, cases ordered to "stand down to (lie bottom of the list." Several judgment suninioiw- were adjourned for a month. THE W'AKEA I'UOXOCKAI'II. J lis Worship gave his decision in tin case W. B. Clarke v. Mary K Taylor, of Waiea, an interpleader action to determine the o'.vHci-ahiji of a phonograph alleged to have been sold by Air*. Taylor to Bert 'Thomas, and afterwards seized m her house by Clarke, under distress tin Worship held that this had been a bona tide sale, and that the receipt given by Mrs. Taylor to Tnoruas upon pa\insnt of the £8 for the phonograph wa. not au unregistered bill of sale, as claimed by Air. Weston. Judgment was given for the claimant Thomas. Au application by Mr. Wright for Thonia/ »x p.'iises and day's wages was opposed b, Mr. Weston, for the defence, and disavowed by the Bench. Witnesses' expenses amounted to Ids (Id, Court costs life, and counsel fee n is, aga j„ st Uarie, the execution creditor. Tip bailiff will no w return the phonograph and records to Thomas. S ' A RENT CLAIM.

lillcu Perrett was sued by K A. Tuke or Wauganui, fur rout due and ia lieu ol notice. A iiouse belonging to the ,)iumuti had been let to the defendant uy -Ur. J. li. Wilson as agent, the reniul being 12s a week, four weeks' notice bemy necessary to terminate the tenancy on either side. Mr. Wilson stated ii evidence that the rent had frequently been in arrears, and dislraiut made uuee home time in September the family lelt the house without notice, beni" "a bit too quick" for plaintiff, who hail issued another distress warrant on the ui-iiiture. When the baililf reached the Douse the "flit" had taken place. After"aids Oi bert T. Perrett, husband of the ueieudant, wrote to llr. Wilson, statin? bat the rent had proved too high, and, laving heard of a cheaper house, they fluu moved into it without delay. In the box Perrett, who appeared on behalf ot his wife, disputed plaintiff's right to I a montn's notice. Ik also stated that I w-leu-they left, the iiouse he .had no j idea that the distraint had been issued. I 'lilt of consideration for his wife's health lie asked that judgment should .»■ entered against him, and not against h-'i. .Mr. Grey elicited from him "how- !'"' r ' ll ' llt llu -' iiiriiiture in the home belonged to ills. ■Porrott, and judgment was given against the latter for the fa'i amount of £lO JUs, with costs of one iMlncss (Mr. Wilson) x.l, Court costs .CI 2s, and counsel fee £1 Os. llr. Grey appeared for the plaintiff. • lIUJiPIiIUES v. LISN. William Humphries (Mr. F. K. Wilson) sued William Linn (.Mr. Grey) for £4 for hay supplied to defendant's cattle. The plaintiff, a wine and spirit merchant, formerly a farmer, deposed that in' August last year a clearing sale of his slock was held on the farm at Puketotara. Defendant bought some of (he cows, nnd, meeting plaintiff on the rud to New Plymouth, asked him to feel them on liny to keep them in condition until he should take delivery of them. At a subsequent interview Linn ask.-d what would be charged. Plaintiff replied £4, and Linn saicl lie hadn't got his cheque-book with him, but wdul.l pay some other time. He sent the account regularly, an.i it was not disputed until some time afterwards, when defendant refused to pay. Cross-examined: lie'could not say wiu was present when Linn agreed in tii" Criterion Hotel to pay the amount, lie on-.ild offer no explanation why in his first claim he had charged for grazing as nell as the liny. Free grazing until the end of the nimilii was a condition of the

sale It was not a fact that tiic hay was ;'ivi'ti at plaintiff's own .su.'jrestio'), aii'J without e]\a:gp, upon Linn complaini«V of tho scarcity of feed. Ccorjrc RTiikesi manager of Hi,, fann fi«i!ii llic time of tlic sale, stated that, acting u|ion Mr. Humphries' instruction, he ]•«.' -cparated Linn's cow* from the otV.i non the place, and fed them daily with hay. The cattle were [riven the run O' al.iml fifty acres, and about a ton of hav v as used.

Cross examined: On two or three occasion three eow« which hail licen sold to Oldham, got in amongst Linn's cows,lint wi re always turned out again. For onweek fourteen of Humphries' own yearlings ran in the same paddock, but they were not fed on Mr. Linn's hay. Evciy lii-in-.t got n fair allowance. William l.inn, farmer, of Oakura, gaw evidence that he bought 11 cows at Humphries' sale, and one of tlie condiferns of the sale was that the cows could he left free of charge on the place till the cud of (he mouth. Ife did not meet lliniKiliries on the road after the sale, bat saw him at the Criterion Hotel. Til iHe i Ksencc of a man named Crockett he complained to Humphries that there was very .ittle feed for the cows, and Hum pluies said: "Xever mind, I'll make the boy* give them some hay." No mention wa? made of payment, lie never ofi'c-e.l tu pay for the hav, as alleged in plaintiffs evidence. Tlie first time he heard ot payment was when Humphries asked him for a cheque, which was refused. Subsequently he received demands for payment, lie visited the farm twice after the sale, and Oldham's cattle and Humphries' heifers were running witii his cows each time. Cross-examined: He could not have bought unless there' had boen free paddocking for a while. He knew the grazing on the place was poor, although he had seen very little' of the place. The eat He were not in very good conditio-!. He received his first account about three mouths after the sale. He could not say if (he cows had the liar.

Jc-eph Crockett, farmer. Omnia, iveolheleri being with l.inn and Humphries at the Criterion Hotel on the day of the latin's sale, and heard Humphries voluiili.r lo tell "the hoys" to give Linn's cons some ha \\

After counsel's addresses, his Worship said that there was a direct conllict in the evidence, and it was one of those eases in which he was justified in exercising the "erinity and good conscience" clause. Tic defendant had bought cows intending them to run on a farm where he ailmiiled the feed was poor, had complained of the scarcity of grass, ami owing- to hi- representations the cows had been fed with hav for.three weeks. Tfe was fairly entitled to pav for if. His .Woisnip thought the estimate of th? quantity consumed was ridiculously low, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs £1 7s,