MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9102, 30 May 1908, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MASTERTON-FRIDAY. A sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held before Mr W. P. James, S.M., at Mastertou yesterday morning. DRUNKENNESS. Edward Robertson, a second offender, was orderfd be prohibited. BREACH OF BOROUGH BYLAWS. Four defendants, named Wm. Keeble, Albert Jones, Wm. Iggulden and R. J. Hodgins were ctiarged with plying vehicles for hire in the Borough without a license. Inspector Cairns prosecuted. All four defendants admitted the breach and were each fined 10s W'th Ys costs. CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following cases:— A. E. Williams v. G. Olliver, claim £1 3s, costs ss; W. G. Hand-Newton v. Richard L. Muir, claim £lO 7s 6d, costs 15s; Dalgety and Co., Ltd., v. J. r. White, claim £35 2s lOd, costs £2 14s; A. E. Williams v. B. Wilton, claim ill 4s, coats ss; W.F.C.A. v. W. Roigard. claim £l4 8s 4d, costs £3 2s. Judgment summonses were dealt with as follows:--Fly and Young v. T. Rae, debt £\ 10s, debtor ordered to pay forthwith in default 7 days imprisonment, order suspended for one month; M. and W. Whittaker v. N. F. Bayne, debt £8 7s 9d, a similar order to the one in the previous case was made with the exception of an 8 days' alternative.

DEFENDED CASES

W. Harvey sued W. G. Speedy for j £l2 value of a plough. Plaintiff's cast; was that he was, doing contract ploughing for defendant, who agreed to take over the plough from plaintiff, who was in return to receive two steers. Defendant later sold out, and suggested to plaintiff to take the plough back, but defendant had meantime been using it. When plaintiff calle-1 later to get the plough the purchaser of defendant's place said he had bought the plough with the place. Defendant, on being told this, said he'd id not sell the plough with, the place, and would see the owner of the property, and get the matter settled up. The defence was that defendant had the opportunity to take the plough away, and neglected to do so at his own risk. Defendant had done his best to get the plough returned, and it was submitted that plaintiff had sued the wrong person nnd should have sued the person now in possession. It was made clear to the purchaser of the t property that the plough did not go with the property. , The case was adjourned until next I Court day to allow of further eviI dence being called. Mr D. K. Logan appeared f->r plaiutiff, and Mr P. L. Hollings for defendant.