MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 August 1921, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING. DAMAGE TO FARMER’S CROP, A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court I was held at New Plymouth yesterday, before Mr. A. M. MowJem, S,M. A claim for £4O damages for trespass of cattle was made by Robert Todd, farmer, of Frankley Road, against Frank Baker. Plaintiff’s counsel (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) said that on the night of March 12, Todd, with the assistance of a couple of neighbors, drove some cattle off his property, and next day found that damage to the extent of the amount claimed had been sustained. It ■was primarily caused to the larger part of a field of turnips. Three chains oi fencing had also been damaged, and plaintiff had had considerable trouble in connection with the whole thing. Plaintiff said the paddock, which was of 5| acres, contained a fair crop of swedes and turnips, when about fifty of defendant’s cows got in. He spent the whole of the following day repairing the fence, assisted, by a neighbor. His crop was not poor, being a fair average one. He thought £6 10s to £7 was very cheap as tiie price per acre for swedes. He admitted not notifying Baker till about a week after, but said he was too tired on the following day. Mr. C. H. Croker (for defendant): 1 put it to you that the whole crop was not worth £10?

Witness: The crop was my salvation in that it saved my stock. Mr. Croker: Could fifty cows do damage to the extent of 50 per cent, to a turnip crop in. two hours? Witness; They would do o, great deal of damage by trampling the crop.

Mr. Croker said the defence was that there was no trespass dn the part of Baker’s herd. If there was any trespass he contended the damages claimed were extreme. It was not possible for Baker’s cattle to stray, as they were in a properly fenced paddock, and on the mooting after the alleged occurrence his cows were still in a cattle-proof paddock. It would be shown that Todd’s fences were in a very bad state, and that the total value of the crop concerned was not more than £lO. Herbert Allan, also a farmer of Frankley Road, estimated the damage done to the crop at £2O. A crop of turnips growing near by had a fortnight ago been sold for £lO per acre, and he considered this a fair price for an average crop. The defendant, Frank Baker, said he was willing to meet Todd with the damages if he could prove that they were his (-Baker’s) cows, but the fact that Todd had deferred any mention of the occurrence until a week later roused his suspicions. He said tha<; in some places Todd’s fence was only 2ft 3in. high, and only the fem and gorse were holding it up. The Magistrate said he could not re- | fuse to believe the evidence of the plainI tiff, and judgment would be given for | him. As regards damages, this had been left to the Court, and he assessed the amount at £l5. A DEBTOR’S POSITION. In a judgment summons case, Pidgeon and Co. v. Frank W. Washbourne, Mr Billing, who appeared for the judgment creditors,•Pidgeon and Co, stated that a judgment had been obtained against Waslrbourne in Christchurch in July, 1917, for £45 8s Id. The cost of sum mouses had since increased the claim to £46 13s Id. Mr. Croker appeared for the defendant.

In answer to Mr. Billing, Washbournb said he could not say what he had earned since 1917. His books were in the hands of Mr. Duff. He paid £l4 per month rent for his motor premises and rates in addition. He took alx>ut £5 per week from the business, and had a wife and three children to maintain from this amount. He paid 25s per week house rent. He did not drink, and had not entered the New Plymouth Club for about four months. He had subscribed £3OOO in shares in a new motor company, but had paid nothing on them, and they were valueless. In answer to Mr. Croker, Washbourne said ho occasionally attended the race- j course as a taxi driver. He may have put a pound on the horses sometimes, but he was not “a punter.”

Vai. Duff gave evidence as to taking out a statement for Washhoutne showing an unfavorable, balance of £9B. He took out a statement in 1920 showing Washbourne’s business to be solvent. At this stage the Magistrate said that it was evident that no advancement could be made in this aese. It was pointed out by several judgment creditors that a meeting of creditors in Washburne’s business was being held, I and His Worship decided to adjourn the case until August 25. It was stated that the creditors’ , meeting would be held on August 9. LEASE OF A SHOP. Last week Edward McGinty (Mr. C I H. Croker) proceeded against Pidgeon ' and Co. (Mr. H. R. Billing) for an alleged breach of agreement to lease plaintiff’s shop. Decision went in favor of plaintiff, but judgment on the matter of costs was deferred. When the case was again called on yesterday, before Mr. C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., judgment was entered, by agreement of the parties, for plaintiff for the sum of £lB 10s, costs £6 7s. A NON-SUIT. Francis Wilmhurst (Mr. Etherington) put in a claim from William T. Bransgrove (Mr. C. H. Croker) for the balance owing on the sale of a bicycle, but the matter was settled out of court. Bransgrove counter-claimed for £8 7s 6d for repairs to the bicycle, the counterclaim being non-suited, with costs.