MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Argus, Volume XI, Issue 1098, 14 November 1901, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Wednesday— (Before Mr H. W. North

croft, S.M). Court Hay at Hamilton is usually n very quiet one,’hut there, was quite a change in the outer of things yesterday, and the Court was occupied from 10 a.in. until five o’clock. There was quite a crop of youthful offenders. Furious Riding.—Two lads named Wni. Wilson and John Cussen were fined Is, and 11s costs for furious riding. Leaving Vehicles Unattended.— Three lads i/aniedj H. Ray, P. Roche, and Wm. Edwards were charged with leaving their vehicles unattended. Kay, who did not appear, was fined 5s and costs 7s, and the oilier two 3a each, and costs 7s.

Breaking Windows.— Six boys, whose ages ranged from seven to ten years, named C. Mayes, Petty, limes, McKenzie, Hunt and Soper were charged with breaking a number of windows in a house, the property of Mrs W. M. Hay. Soper was discharged as he was under age, the charges against Lines and McKenzie were dismissed, Hutt and Mayes were ordered to pay for two panes of glass, and Petty for one pane. His Worship gave a kindly admonition to the youugstets, advising them in future to keep out of mischief of this kind. Ho said the Hamilton West School must be a very good one, as although the windows were broken, out of 60 or 100 children, with one exception, none ot them had thrown anything. The only one who had thrown anything was a little girl, and she, of course, could not fire straight, and missed the mark. He thought it would have been better if, iusteid of bringing the children into Court, the schoolmaster had taken action, when it could have been settled by collecting sufficient money to cover the cost of the damage, and he might have unearthed the chief offenders ; as it was, the bigger hoys put the whole of the blame on the smaller ones,

An Amusing Cask —Some amusernent was caused l)y a case brought by S. Barker, jeweller, against Joseph Frear. The claim was tor 10s 6d (5s of whi hj with 3s Gd costs had been paid into Court), and 5s Gd for putting a spring in a watch.—ln his statement defendant said he hid sent his watch to Mr Barker to be repaired. Barker put a new spring in it. but it would not go, and although he sent it back three times it still refused to go, He theu took it to Mr Bowden, who said the spring was too large, and put in another. His Worship . ‘ What became of the spring ? It surely belonged to Barker. ' Mr Frear said Bowden got that Defendant theu called Mr Bowden to give expert evidence. This witness said tint the wa ch would not have gone as it was, and he put in another spring. Frear paid him 7s 6d. His Worship: ‘The spring should have gone back to Barker, What was the value of it?’ Witness: ‘Not much.’ The Bench: ‘Bow much?’ Witness : ‘ About Is.’ The Bench (jocularly): ‘ And you charged Frear 7s Gd for it. No wonder watchmakers make money. Talk about the law after that !’ (Laughter). The witness reminded him that it was skilled labour. —By Mr Barker : ‘ Would anyone in the trade put in anything but a regulation-size spring ? Witness : ‘ That a 1 depends if he had the correct thing at hand or not. If not he would probably nut in something ns a makeshift.' (Laughter).—Mr Karker said Frear had brought the watch back to him two or three times to regulate it, that was all. —Bis Worship : ‘ Frear says the watch would not go. It would only go when he carried it, and I give judgment for plait tiff for, the 5s paid into Court and coats 3s Gel, and for defendant for the other sum, with costs 22b.’

Dickey v. Sheffakd.— Judgment was given in the case Dickey v. Sheppard, which had been adjourned on several occasions. The claim was for arltove taken over by defendant when he purchased Mr Dickey’s farm, and which defendant contended was a fixture and therefore portion of the freehold. Mr Swarbiick appeared for the claimant, and Mr O’Neill for the defence. Evidence was given by Mr Fawkes, who placed the stove in position, that it was a portable one, and that it could be removed without injury to the chimney, hut that in order to do so, some cement which had been bevelled up at the bottom of the stove for the sake of neatness, would have to be broken.—Mr Thoa. Chappell also gave similar expert evidence.—Counsel addressed the Bench at length, quoting numerous cases in support of thi ir contentions.—Mr Northorofc held that as the stove could not be removed without breaking the cement, and thereby d. ing damage to the inheritance, it must be considered a fixture, and judgment would be given for defendant with costs £2 D4d.

MoNicgl and Co. v. Geo. NewL4ND. —ln thisca-e plaiuliff claimed the sum of £lO 6s 9d, beiuj excess paid to defendant hy defendant by mistake for cattle sold at Waitoa in January, 19v 0 Mr Swa-rbricU appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Gieudon, Thames, for defendant. Plaintiffs and their clerks gave evidence that on the day in question defeidmt had brought in 41 cattle, (f which 35 were his own, and six belonged to Thos. Brown. Defendant was in a hurry to catch the train, and by some mistake the auctioneer's clerk paid h'm for thrte cattle in excess. For the defence Newland and Brown stvore that they had brought 44 cattle to the sale, and that defendant had been correctly paid. The Magistrate said he wished to have the evidence of the men who drove the cattle from the railway station to the yards, and adjourned the case in order that they might be called.