FEILDING

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 254, 25 September 1929, Page 8

FEILDING

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. JUDGMENT RESERVED. (Sptci&l to “Stan dstd/’i FEILDING, .Sept. 25. The hearing wa* concluded ir. tee Ma?i/’rate! Court, before Mr R. M. V.'at«n, S.M.. yeiterday afternoon, of the civil action iri -which Archibald H. M*-Nee 'Mr Ongley;. labc-jjer, of Haicomhe. claimed from William E. L. Bang* 'Sir JL.-rctt,, farmer, of Sanr-cm. the ran of £3%. being carnages alleged to have been attained by plaintiff through tie alleged breach of conditions of lease of a property at Mi. Bigzt, owned by plaintiff and let to defendant. _ The opening evidence in plaintiff* case apoeared in the “Standard” yesterday. To Mr Elliott, Leslie William Cole, farm manager, said hi* principals hao instructed r.im to pot the place in finz-cla** order, fie considered that 14 gates were require*) in addition to the other fencing materia., f.c May of this year- he had obtained a valuable crop off 1,5 acres on the farm. Lav:d Reid stated that he was grazing the propertv before defendant* took pcs-e-.-saio.c. V.'her, defendant entered into ;ciesession, the fences were all in fair condition, and were sceep proof. When defendant went out, a couple of the su.vdivisional fences were Sat. He went over toe property last after defendant gave it up, end his idea was that the corse had not been grubbed for toree or four years. One pat/th of Sve acres had not been touched, but it had not spread very much. Ihe property had certainly gone oacs: whife defendant was on it. Samuel Nelson Mar.agh, or Mt. Eiggs, atated that he had grazed the property shortly after defendant gave' i: up. _ He rode over the property before he took itand was over it frequently while he was renting it. When he lock over the property, the subdivision fences were a., down, no paddock being secure. To put t.i the fence* and gates znto repair would have cost £l5O to £l5O. Approximate,y, 40 to 42 acres had been broken up anti not sown down m grass an-u this would cost £3 10s to £3 It* per acre to so-* down. There had not oeen muen Cone to the gorse during the time defendant had the property. To grub cut the gerse when witness went on tnc property would have been worth £2O an acre, ar.d tne gome on the roaside would cost about £* a chair, for 25 tc 30 c.oains. A paten five acres in a gully wou.d be worm £ioo to grub out. The dams had not beer, cleaned out, he snou.d say lor lon years previously. It would have cost to have them cleaned out. While deiendamt had the place two paddocks w.nich he laid down had been made better ar.d the rest became worse. There was no sign of any reasonable re::air to the fence* during the time defendant had the property. To Mr Elliott: He knew the property when it was taken over by denfendar.t. Generally speaking, the place was in bah order. The fences were in bad repair, the gorse had spread ar.d tne pastures had run out. Witness only grazed the property. Tine cattle he had had on it would not account for the bad state cf tne subdivisionai fences. He could not understand the witness Cole saying that the dams were fairly clean, for there was at least four feet of mud in them. At this stage the Magistrate observed that whether the fences were had or not when defendant took over the property was, in law, beside the point and defendant was obliged to repair them before he left. The Magistrate took it that the isarne applied to the gorse. , Mr Elliott said he was aware of this fact, but he wanted to pul forward the merit*- of defendant’s case. Mr Ongley pointed out that it was admitted by both parties that gorse was a noxious weed within the Manawatu County. DEFENDANT’S CASE.

For defendant, counsel said he had intended to bring evidence to show that defendant had spent a considerable sum of money on improving the property, but in view of the proceedings defendant claimed that plaintiff was estopped from succeeding .in hi* action by his failure to take action for all he alleged in his claim when defendant was first sued for rates. Counsel went on to quote an Appeal Court decision in which it was laid down that one action in such proceedings should embrace all matters at issue, and defendant had been sued for rates and he had paid them. Counsel went on to quote legal authorities bearing on the case and claimed that the action of defendant in abandoning the place arid letting it to Managh was within the law. Counsel was at a loss to understand the delay that had taken place in bringing the action. There had never teen ant complaints received from McNae while defendant was there and he (defendant, naa done his best with a property that was admittedly in bad repair when it was taken over. There was authority to show that the action of plaintiff in leasing the property for grazing to Managh teminated the lease to defendant unless plaintiff expressly stated to defendant that he was leasing the property on bis account. Plaintiff had not given any such notice. Mr Origlev submitted that defendant had known what he was doing when he took over the place as he had been living alongside jt. Counsel went on to quote authorities in opposition to those raised by counsel for defendant and claimed that under the Statute of Limitations plaintiff had 20 years in which to bring forward his claim, the reason why the claim had riot been put forward before was, because defendant’s financial position was not thought to Ire worth the expenditure necessary. In reply to one of the points raised by Mr Elliott, counsel stated that tne place had been re-let when defendant went off, and a higher rent had been obtained, the balance of which over and above ,tbat due from defendant had been credited to the latter’s account. He claimed that the present proceedings were not estopped, because of the fact that each breach was a separate cause of action. .There had been no question of waiver of the lease at any time and the action of plaintiff in leasing the property did not affect hia right of action for the non-fulfilment of the covenants of the lease. The Magistrate said he would look into the authorities quoted and give his decision next Court day. CIVIL LIST. Judgment was granted for plaintiff by default in the following undefended civil casts; —Harvey and Son v. Joe Hawera, hi 8s 9d, cost* £1 15s; W. J. Fort and Coy. v. J. M. Pauli, £2O 13s, cost* £4 43 6d; C. M. McDonald v. Hakaraia Tc Kaatoa and Mura Te Kaatoa (eeparaur estate), w3u 0,2 d, cost* £5 2* 6d; C. M.. McDonald v. Taro Keeni, £1 10s Id, ooste £2 14s Id; \V. H. Bain and Coy v. P. H. James, £7 12i, costs £1 14s 6d; Feilding Sa*h and Door Coy., Ltd. v. J. H. Sanson, £3 19s, costs £1 7s 6d; Hodder and Tolley, Ltd. v. W. Laing, £2 73 2d, costs £1 53 6d; E. J. Kendall v. G. E. Wilcocks, £3 15* 4d costs £l. 7s 6d; same v. N'.Z. Commercial Association, Ltd., £2, costs £1 Si 6d; F. J. Mann v. Martin Matahi, £2 173 lid, cost* £1 123 6d; Kingston Motors, Ltd. v. W. Laing, £3 Is, costs £1 53 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. A. Pearcey was ordered to pay William Jeffery, Ltd., the surn of £7 10s 9d forthwith in default seven days’ imprisonment, the warant to be suspended on payment «i £1 per month.

OBITUARY.

MR A. HANNETT. At the advanced age of 78 years, Feildoldest inhabitant, Mr Alfred Hannett, passed away at his residence, Denbign Street, last night. Bom in England the deceased, in his very early days,_ felt the call for a freer life and left by himself in the sailing ship Annie Barrington for New Zealand. His early career in the then sparsely settled colpny was spent in NeUon which he left later for Feildirig, arriving here just prior to the purchase of the Manchester Block by the Colonists and Emigrants’ Aid Corporation in 1870. 1 he late Mr Hannett was associated with all the pioneering activities of the district. Later, he proceeded to Taranaki, and was for a time engaged in the shipping service between Nelson and Wanganui. He returned to Feilding, where he lived for the greater part of his life. In recent years, he suffered ill-health which kept this formerly well-known figure to his home. Dc-

ceased was a keen racing enthusiast ana had raced horse* in bis own colours. Mrs Hanneit predeceased her husband about 2o years ago and there are left a grown-up family of two sons and five daughters— Me-dames H- Patchert and L. Hughes j (Wanganui;, Mrs W. Thomas (Feiidmg.,, j Misses D. Hannett and A. Hannezc, cf ] Feilding, and ilessrs G. E. and W. L. j Hannett, both cf Feilding. In addition j to the sympathy cf the deceased’s many j icoal friends, the bereaved family will hare that cf many friends and acquaintances In the Taranaki ant Wanganui districts where the deceased was well-known. BOOT IMPORTER'S CLAIM. DISPUTED BY PARENTS. E. Svendsen, boot importer, of Feilding, sought to recover £ls from Otto and : Gertrude MUlicent Puss-ell, of K/nbohon, ' lot hocts and shoes allegedly supplied: over a period of trrree. years. 3lr Seddon ] appeared tor plaintiff and Mr Ongley for defendants. In evidence, plaintiff stated that Mrar.d Mr* Pusseil had been his clients for! the past 15 years, and the goods, gen- j erally were sent by mail. The good* were ■ generally ordered by letter signed "0. j Puaseli.” the required articles being for children and adult*. Letters (produced; 1 had come from defendants’ home and: goods had heert supplied in accordance 1 witin the letters’ instructions. Sometimes! witness received a telepnone ring _ ar.d ■ forwarded the goods accordingly. Defend-j an: himself had been in plaintiffs shop, j the last time being when he had caked to j pay £2 ICi on a.n account Defendant did J not dispute the account nor mention anything. scout his daughter ordering goodsAt ho time did witness receive instructions from defendant net to supply goods crcered by hi* daughter. Other letters were produced showing that defendants had. prior to the account being disputed ordered goods in the tame way. ::ness rendered accounts every raorts and none had been returned. Mrs Pusseil had been in the shop and paid an account for boots and shoes. The disputed account was for boots supplied in various sizes. To Mr Ongley: Defendants had had an account ■with witness and his lather. The accounts were generally email ones, and the orders generally came by letter. Mr Puss-eii did not dispute the account -when he paid £2 20s in” 1927. Ke knew Mrj Pus-ell's handwriting and -when the letters came in 1225 and 1929 he recognised tne vrriling as that of Miss Pusseil. He had compared the girl’s writing with that c: her mother and the manner cf the order vra-s identical- He assumed from the order for lady's evening snoea that defendants' daughters were growing up and were going to dances. NNhen tne account was growing witness made inquiries izoin the Kim bo-ton storekeeper ar.d was assured that it would be alright. At one time Mr Pusseil offered some potatoes in part payment of the account, but these were or no use to witness. CASE FUR DEFENCE. For the defence, Mr Ongley said that defendants’ daughter had suddenly b.ossomed out and r.ao been ordering evening dresses and shoes and walking shoes and generally had run up large debts in the name of her parents, not only in Feilding but also in Palmerston North, witnout her parents’ knowledge. The debts amounted to over £IOO and credit had been given by shopkeepers without any apparent enquiry into the financial position uf thejr customer. In evidence Mr Pusseil said small farm at Kimbolton and worked for the Kiwitea County Council. In March, 1927, he received an account for £6 from plaintiff and he went in and disputed it and warned plaintiff not to give any credit in hi* name without hi* authority. He had not Den in plaintiff’s shop since and in Mat laer he received an account for £l3, which witness promptly disputed. He had a daughter named Eva who was 18 years of age last August. She had no authority to obtain creoit in his name. His daughter left Kim’nolton last April and he had not heard of her since, and at present had no idea where she was. Since she had been away witness had received accounts totalling nearly £lO5, chiefly for luxury article*. He had made a statement to the police about the matter some time ago, and they had taken the case in hand. His daughter was earning about £1 to £1 5s per week whilst she had been working at Kimbolton. The Magistrate remarked that there wa* only one way in which the girl could have acted in the manner spoken of, and that was by collecting the letters ,and keeping them from her parent*, but this would have been nearly impossible when she was out working. To Mr Ongley: Witness had never noticed hi* daughter wearing many new shoes. To Mr Seddon: Witness took size 8 in boots and he could not account for a pair of boots which had been ordered by his daughter in December, 1923. He had not given her authority to get them or any others. The Magistrate: It means this: That the daughter forged Her rnother’3 name to letters and obtained goods and then intercepted the mail and took the accounts when they came in. At least, that is what dele.ndant is telling the Court To Mr Seddon, witness Etatc-d that all his. correspondence had not been opened, but he had received accounts after his daughter left that he had not got while she was at home. Gertrude Millicent Pusseil, wife of the previous witness, gave evidence on similar lines. She had never received any parcels from plaintiff since the account was disputed in 1927, ehe said. Her boys hod had football boots but not tennis shoes. They had never been to the seaside or played tennis to need them. The Magistrate: You know perfectly well that tennis shoes are put to any use, don’t you?—Yes. . 'To Mr Seddon : She had never dictated letters to her daughter Eva to eerid to plaintiff for hoots. Slit) could not sav why the letters written by her were similar in style to those written by her daughter. She admitted that her daughters had been to a fancy dress ball at Kimbolton.. This concluded the case and, in giving judgmert, the Magistrate eaid he preferred to accept the story of plaintiff in regard to the obtaining of the goods in 1927 by Mr Puesell, and would give judgment for plaintiff on that score accordingly- , • , ~ “With regard to those items of the account which tl* Russell’s state their daughter obtained by means of forgery, if may be that the Court has got at the true fact 3or it has not. I trust, however, that the police will be able to get some investigation into the matter to c *. up. It is decidedly criminal and I hope that an attempt will be made to clear it up and punishment given where it should be.”. His Worship then went on to ltemj&e the account and gave judgment for all boots and shoes other than those apparently supplied to Miss Pusseil, the Judgment amount to £7 10s 6d with £1 14s 6d CO£t«.