RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1809, 30 October 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temtjka — Monday, Oct. 29, 188 S

(Before Captain C. A. Wray, R.M.) COMPULSOET EDUCATION. W. Fawdray, charged with - having neglected to send his child, Ellen Fawdray, to school, said he was obliged to keep her at home owing to having a very delicate wife. W. Bryars, headmaster of the school, stated that the child, Ellen Fawdray had been attending very irregularly. She had been present only 28 times out of a possible 117 times during the last quarter, and 6 out of 40 this quarter. W. Fawdray, the defendant, said he had a very delicate wife, and it was necessary to keep the child at home. The child was not strong, and got ill at school. She was not well enough to go present. Was willing to send her to school when she was fit to go. His Worship adjourned the case for a fortnight to see how she would attend in the meantime. Henry D unford, similarly charged, pleaded guilty, but said he was under the impression his daughter was over age. W. Bryars stated the attendance of the child, who was 12 years of age and only in the third standard. She ought to have passed the third standard at the age of 11 years. H. D unford said she was away in service, and she would not come hack. He believed she was 13 years on the Ist of September last. An order was made that the child should be sent to school regularly, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs, 7s. Eichard Williams, similarly charged, pleaded that his child, Sarah, had been very unwell. W. Bryars stated the number of times she had been absent. She was in the third standard and only 9 years of age. Eichard Williams stated that she suffered from “ bronchitis on the chest,” and that was the reason she was not sent to school. She was most willing to go, and it was a job to keep her at home when she was well. The child was ordered to go to school, and the defendant was ordered to pay 5s costs. CIVIL CASES. Yelvin and Taylor v. H, Hansen— Claim, £1 9s Judgment summons. J. W. Velvin proved the amount was still due. W, Storey, sen., stated the defendant was working for him, and earned about £2 per week. Had over £llos in hand belonging to j;he defendant. Hr Hansen, defendant, stated that he had not the means to pay, and asked for time, Ordered to pay 10s forthwith, and the balance in weekly instalments of 10s. John Crow r. J. McEobbie— Claim £1 Os 2d. _ Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff.

The sum of 8s lid was paid into Court.

The plaintiff stated the amount was due as the price of fowls, etc. Witness delivered the fowls himself.

John Mcßobbie stated he never got the fowls. He calW to the house, but the butter was not good. What the plaintiff was driving at was that witness had gone through the Bankruptcy Court previously, and it was the amount witness owed then plaintiff was trying to recover. Mr Aspinall asked for an adjournment, as he had witnesses to prove delivery of the fowls. The adjournment was granted. C. H Reid v. K. F, Gray, His Worship gave judgment as follows:—

In this case the plaintiff sues for £25 damages for an alleged illegal distress. The facts show that rent was due on a weekly tenancy, and that the defendant levied for a period, including in the distraint one week’s rent more than was due (and which had not become due by one day). That is to say, the whole sum alleged to be due being £9 11* 6d, the defendant was only entitled to levy for £9 4s 6d, the rent being 7s a week. I find on. the evidence that the distress was not excessive as to the rent which was due, and that it was not illegal, as nearly all the rent was due at the time of the distress and the plaintiff suffered no damage. The principle is clearly laid down in Tancred v. Leyland (by Parke’s) 20 L.j; 28., page 316. It is settled law that a distrainor may justify for any cause which existed at the time, although be set up a different one. Judgment for defendant with costs, Hopkinson v. J. Meyer—Claim £3. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hay for defendant, W, Hopkinson stated that about 6 months ago Mr Meyer offered to let a paddock to witness for a crop of oats. The arrangement was: witness to do the work, and the defendant to find the land and seed. The paddock was about 19£ acres. When 8 acres were ploughed it came on to rain, and witness stopped. The big flood filled all the swampy places with water, and he could not get on with the ploughingjfor some time. It was arranged to go on with the ploughing on the 17th of September, and two days after Mr Meyer said the contract had been broken, and that he had let the work to another man, as he could not depend on witness. Witness asked what would he allow for the work done. The value of the ploughing done was about £2. Went to another £l expense in getting a plough and a roller. The crop was to be divided equally. To Mr Hay: Thera was nothing said about when it should be ploughed. It was to have been ploughed so that it might get some frost. Did not promise Mr Meyer in July he would do the work immediately. Did not say in September he would have nothing to do with it. John Meyer, defendant, stated he let the paddock to plaintiff at 10s per acre. He was to have fallowed it in May. He agreed to this. In the latter end of May he ploughed about 5 acres, Witness was ill, and in July met him. He promised to send a team in a day or two, but he did not. In August the flood came, and he could not plough. He promised to do the work in the beginning of September, but he did not. On the 17th of September he said he would have nothing to do with the 10s per acre arrangement, and the partnership arrangement was then made. He promised to set to work at once, but he did not, and on the afternoon of the 20th witness let the land to another. It was almost too late then. It was not fallowed at all, and the loss will probably be 10s per acre. To Mr Aspinall: The teams were not away on the 17th. He did not say that the horses were not available then. The land could have been ploughed and harrowed in July. On the 18th of September told him to go to Mr Brown for wheat. Would have waited for him longer only he had so frequently deceived witness that he could not trust him.

In reply to the Court, witness said the ploughing done by the plaintiff did more harm than good. The plaintiff deceived witness for 5 months, and he had no faith in him. Plaintiff had sheep, on the land during defendant’s illness.

His Worship said evidently the plaintiff had neglected to take advantage of the facilities afforded him to do the work, so be bad himself to blame. Judgment for the defendant with costs.

M. S. Dyson r. A. W. Surridge —Claim £4 10s.

Mr Aspinall, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that when the case came before the Court a fortnight ago Surridge asked for an adjournment to enable him to get witnesses from Waimate. Instead of getting the witnesses he came that morning and confessed judgment. Owing to Surridge having shown a determination to defend the case the plaintiff had to subpoena Dr Hayes, and now he (Mr Aspinall) asked for jpr Hayes’s expenses.

His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, and costs, including Dr Hayes’ fee. J. Angland v. J. Moynihan. Mr Hay appeared again for the plaintiff, and got the case adjourned for another mouth. The Court then rose.