MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2452, 17 March 1909, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TUESDAY, MARCH 16th. (Before Mr AA r . A. Barton, >S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. On? first offender on a charge of drunkenness was fined 5s with ccsts 7s, in default 21 hours’ imprisonment, and another first offender, who did not appear, was fined ISs with costs 2s. John lieaphy, who pleaded guilty to 'a second offence, was fined £1 with costs 2s in default 4 days’ imprisonment. ALLEGED SERIOUS OFFENCE. George Manns, charged with a serious offence, was remanded until Friday next. FURIOUS DRIVING, AA’liare Kewa (Mr Coleman) pleaded guilty to a charge of furious driving at Whatatutu and was fined £2 with costs 10s. ENTERING LICENSED PREMISES. William Trevelyan, who did not appear, was, on the evidence of Constable Doyle, convicted : of being on licerfsed premises at Te Karaka during the currency of a prohibition order, and was fined £5 -with costs 7s in default 30 days’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. PURCHASE OF A LAWN MOWER. E. W. Burton (Mr J. W. Nolan) sued lan S. Simson (Mr Burnard) for £4 foxgoods supplied. Ernest W. Burton, ironmonger, said defendant came to his shop in December last and asked to be shown a Pennsylvania lawn mower. Plaintiff said lie had no such machine in stock hut had others of equal quality which he showed defendant, and a sale was effected at £4. - The machine was tested before it left the shop. Some time afterwards Mr Simson complained -that the machine was not working satisfactorily. Plaintiff sent a man to defendant’s house to attend to the machine; but Air Simson returned the mower, to the shop. Plaintiff then sent ‘the machine to Air Humphreys, who reset the knives and it was returned to defendant; hut Air Simson wrote stating that he would not take the machine back. To Air Burnard: He was certain he told defendant lie had no Pennsylvania machines in stock.

Walter Bull, ironmonger’s assistant, employed by plaintiff, said he saw the machine tested before being delivered and it was in perfect working order. He understood the working parts of lawn mowers, and when, later on, lie examined the machine at defendant’s house, he found that the adjustments had been tampered with. He readjusted the machine and it worked well. Defendant had told witness that he had tried to adjust the machine. - George Humphreys, engineer, said he set the machine in question. He found the machine had been tampered with, and put it in perfect order. Air Burnard said he would call evidence to show that the machine was not suited for the purpose for which it. was sold. Defendant had since bought a Pennsylvania machine and found it to work splendidly.

The defendant said ho was recommended to purchase a Pennsylvania lawn mower and called at plaintiff’s shop to purchase one. Plaintiff said: “I have the very thing to suit you.” Witness looked at a machine and said : "Send it over.” He tried 'the mower and it went well for a time, but then refused to cut. He told plaintiff the machine was not working well, and a man was sent over some days after to fix it up. Witness tried the machine again; birt it did not work well. _ae again complained and the machine was taken away and returned; but it would not give satisfaction. Witness returned the machine to plaintiff, hut it was sent back. One of plaintiff’s employees tried to make the machine cut the lawn, hut said the machine was of no use, and he would take it back. The machine was then taken away and witness ordered a Pennsylvania machine from Messrs Williams and Kettle. Air Burton, however, again sent the mower back; hut the machine would not do its work. AYit-ness returned the machine, but plaintiff refused to take delivery. James Aliller said he saw the mower at Air Simson’s house. It was not a Pennsylvania make, but he did not tell Air S’mson so. He tried the machine, but it would not work well. It would cut witness’ grass all right, but Air Simson had a lot of wild, turnips in his lawn. He thought the blades of the machine were too soft.

Henry Hay, gardener, said lie was employed by Afr Simson to cut a lawn with the machine in question. He took about three times longer'to do the work than usual because the mower did -not work well. He told Mr Simson he could do better work with a Pennsylvania machine.

Edmund Alaher, employed by plaintiff, said lie tried to use the machine on Air Simson’s lawn. The machine seemed to work all right*, hut lie thought it wanted setting.. He did not remember all he said to Air Simson about- the machine. He did not say the machine was no good. He took the machine back to the shop with him, because it required setting Air. Burnard said that the machine was not competent to do the work required by Air Simson. Air Nolan submitted that the machine dud its work until interfered with.

His AVorship held that the mower was unsuitable for the work .for which it was sold, but that the machine was neff represented to be a “Pennsylvania.” Judgment would be for defendant with costs £1 Ids. CLAIAI FOR RENT.

Andrew Hood (Air Burke) sued G. Coleman for £4 3s for rent. Defend dant admitted the claim, but said plaintiff was also* indebted To him. Judgment was given for plaintiff for tho amount claimed with costs 10s. JUDGAIENT SUAIMONS.

A. M. Lewis (Mr Blair) sought to recover £2 2s 3d from John James Cassidy. The debt had been owing since 19Q5. Defendant said he was only earning £2 os a week, and could not pay. Ho had had sickness in his fam-i ily. The Magistrate said he could not make an order under the circumstances. CHANGE OF VENUE. APPLICATION' REFUSED. , Mr J. W. Nolan applied for a change of venue from Gisborne to Palmerston North for the hearing of the case G. R. Moore v. J. A, McCrea, claim for £ls for breach of warranty on the sale of a. Jersey cow. Mr T. Alston Coleman, for the plaintiff, opposed the application, and after hearing Counsel, Ilis Worship, refused the request with costs ■aASLJho. c.'.ec d-.v-- -or hcai'cs.