MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8398, 12 April 1907, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

JfIASTERTON-THURSDAY. Mr W. P. James, S.Mi) /judgment for plaintiff by default, with costs, was given in each of the following debt cases:—C. Wagland v. Con. Walsh, claim £1 9s 6d, costs ss; A. C. Major v. G. Livingstone, claim £2 10s. costs ss; same v. A. A. Cuthberton, claim 19s 6d, costs ss; same v. Frank G. Mangusson, claim £2 6s, costs 10s; W.F.C.A. v. David Palmer, claim £4 14s 4d, costs 10s; and Anderson v. A. Collins, claim £1 ss, costs ss; Paora Tihi v. Albert Jones, claim £7 10s, costs £1 Ss6d. In the judgment summons case of Mark Cossar v. P. Kirk by, jcldm £5 9s, defendant was ordered to ■•Py 20s per week, first payment to be made on April 15th. Thos. Dwyer and Co. claimed from W. iM. Whishaw the sum of £7l3s for the hire of a motor car. # The sum of £6 had been paid into court.- Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr B. J. Dolan for the de'Mr Pownall explained that the item ih dispute was for £3 5s 6d for five and a quarter hours' hire of the car on February 23rd. The rate charged was 12s 6d per hour while the car was running and half that rate when standing. . S. Cross, chaffeur, deposed that the car was used at different times on the day in question, but he could not say the exact time that the car ' was running. The accumulators in the car broke down for about an hour. Defendant stated that the running time of the car was only 2| hours, and the car was standing for threequarters of an hour. J. W. Cochrane and A. Greenfield, who used the car, stated that the hiring time of the car was only about 3i hours. The Magistrate gave judgment for £6 ss, with £1 13s costs. Mr James pointed out that it was essential that motor car keepers should keep an exact record of the time that a car was hired out. William Collins alias William Williams was charged, on the information of Inspector Cairns, with haying •written advertisements on a bridge maintained by the Borough Council «*6ntrary to the Municipal Corporations Act. Defendant did not appear. ' The Inspector stated that when he asked the defendant on whose authority he had written the advertisements on the bridge, the latter replied that one of the workmen on the road had told him that he could do so. Defendant promised to discontinue the practice, and obilterate the advertisements, but he had not done so, A fine of £2, with 7s costs, was imposed. After the case had been heard defendant appeared and stated that he had missed the train and he had ridden to the Court to defend the case. The Magistrate then reduced the fine to 30s on condition that the advertisement was obliterated.