DISTRICT COURT—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 173, 25 July 1887, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT—THIS DAY.

<'.~': UNDEFENDED, CASE. 1 A. C. Minnetti v. T. Fossett.—Mr Napier for the judgment creditor.—The debtor stated that he' had pawned a gun belonging to the plaintiff last Saturdaynight for L 2 10s. He had an account a*< the Post Office Savings Bank. Could not say. how much was there. He was out shooting! last Friday. He could always earn 25» a week and his keep for shooting rabbits. He could shoot about 30 a day. - He neither drank nor smoke, and lived very cheap. Did not generally make Ll a week.—Alfred Minnetti deposed that he lent the defendant a gun, value L 8 10s.—His Honor said that he was sure from the way the defendant had given his. answers that he was able to pay. He therefore made an order, for the amount claimed L 34, to be paid on or before the 2nd of August, or one month in default. , DEFENDED CASE. The Sugar Case.—Thompson v. Mrs Thomas.—Claim, LSO damages for fake imprisonment.—Mr Theo. Cooper for the plaintiff and Mr Fred. Earl for the defence. — The facts of this case were already heard in the Lower Court. It, will be remembered that the plaintiff was arrested at the request of the defendant for the larceny of 101b of sugar from her shop at Arch Hill. When the case was' heard in the Lower Court, it was decided', that there was no evidence to warrant'tlio; arrest of the accused, who was ac-' cordingly discharged, as he had never1 previously been in a Court of justice charged with a criminal offence. The I plaintiff, Thompson took action to recover | LSO as damages for false imprisonment.—' The evidence for the plaintiff was heard' this morning. It merely tended to show! that there had been no grounds for the arrest, as the young man, Thompson, had been sent by his employer, Mr Arthur Prince, to obtain the sugar in liquidation of a debt due to him by defendant's husband. —Mr Cooper contended that the arrest) was a malicious one, and that his client was entitled to some consideration as damages for the loss entailed upon him.—■ As the defendant's witnesses were not in attendance, the defence was not gone into. ■■ • ■ ■■ ■ • ■ - ■ ■ -..:■■ .;;"t"' .>