Reserved Decision in Magistrate's Court

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7284, 11 October 1933, Page 11

Reserved Decision in Magistrate's Court

Two reservod decisions were delivered in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Mr J, L. Stout, S.M. Injury to a Finger The first was in regard to a claim by John Brow against Frank Wynne, restaurant proprietor, of Palmerston North, and S. V. Sharman. Plaintiff claimed from the defendant Wynne £lO 14s compensation for an injury to a finger alleged to have beon caused by a fish-bone puncturing it during the courso of his employment. In his judgment, Mr Stout said that there was insufficient ovidenco to show that the injury had been caused by a fish-bone during work at tho restaurant. Plaintiff would be non-suited, costs being set down at £3 3s. At tho hearing Mr Grant appeared for plaintiff and Mr McLeavey for Wynne, whilo Sharman, formerly a partner in defendant’s business, was represented by Mr Sinclair. Claim Over A Horse Iu the caso in which P. T. Jamieson, Palmerston North farmer, proceeded against G. M. Mallett, farmer of Kairanga, for £2O as the purchase price of a bay draught mare, Mr Stout found in favour of plaintiff.

Tho Magistrate stated that there was a contradiction of evidence. The statements made by defendant’s wife seomed to support plaintiff’s 3tory, however, while hor brothor had declared that the animal had "not been fit for the pigs.” The latter statement would not have been made if the horse had been borrowed as defendant contended. Plaintiff claimod that he had sold the horse and not lent it, while defendant, after the death of the animal, had not told Jamieson until two days afterwards. Judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs amounting to £5 Ss. Mr Gordon appeared for plaintiff and Mr Ongley for defendant. Claim for £35 Heard, A claim for £35 was heard by Mr Stout yestorday when D. G. Yarrall, labourer, of Taikorca (Mr Ongley), took action against Pay H. Miller, taxi driver, of Palmerston North (Mr McLeavey), alleging that he had been falsely and frandently induced to buy a motor-cycle. Yarrall, in evidence, said that he had purchased the machine from Miller in March last. Plaintiff said he had been quoted £75 for it, the machine being said to bo a 1931 model with the original tyres and enamel on it. Subsequently, plaintiff had discovered that the bicycle neither had ita original tyres nor enamel while the engine had commenced to give trouble. Later Plaintiff was allowed £35 for another machine which he had purchased earlier from defendant but had not used. The second machine was a 1929 model and had been secured by defondant for £37 10s.

A. A. Mutch, clerk, of Palmerston North, stated that ho was formerly the owner of tho second bicycle which defendant had purchased from him for £37 .TOs and subsequently sold to plaintiff. Tho mackino had been in witness’s hands for several months, while a previous owner had had it for a year to his knowledge. The machine had been “done up” and witness had fitted it with now tyros. Defendant had paid' £3O from Yarrall for the bicycle and added £7 10s from hie own pocket. Defendant, after giving evidence, was cross-examined at length. The Magistrate found in favour of plaintiff for £35 and costs, Mr &tout adding that there was no doubt of deliberate fraud. Ho urged defendant to hurry and pay the amount. If a judgment summons came before him he would order the amount to be paid at once, and the default would be a stiff term of imprisonment.