MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12851, 9 July 1907, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr H. W. Bishop. S.M.) In the following cases, judgment, with cost, by default, was given for the plaintiffs yesterday Webster (MrCuiiinghain) v Walter Williams, £'i 10->; Victor Harris (Mr Mosley) v James O. Scott, £1 Gs; Henry Berry and Co. (Mr Hosher) v J. Parsons, £5 Os lOd; H. Pannell (Mr Mosley) v A. StodcLirt, £1 los; F. A. Cook (Air Cuninghani) v J. Perry, £13 Ids Id; H. Jutsum vJ. McLean, 16s 9d; H. Hearfield (Mr Mosley) v A. S. A. Johnston, £4 10s; Best and Town© (Mr Rowe) v T. McCTurg, £3; Best and Town© (Mr Row©) v H. Smith, £1 is; Drapery ancl Generol Importing Company v J. Bore, £9 9s; same v Joseph Hill, £8 lGs lOd; J. Strnssmeyer v H. Lloyd. KJs Cd; -Mason, .Struthers and Co.', Ltd. v T. Fyfe, £19 14s 4d. J. Prceco (Mr Cuningham) asked for an order on a judgment summons against W. H. Lodge, for an unsatisfied judgment for £5 4s. After hearing the ©xiniination of the judgment debtor the Magistrate declined to mako an order. George Weston (Mr Cuningham applied for an order against W. C. Hooper on on unsatisfied judgment for £1 Gs. Th© Magistrate -refused to m-ike the order.

William Vincent, a young man, aged twenty-soven years, was adjudged an habitual drunkard within tho meaninii of the Habitual Drunkards Act of 190 i and was committed to the Samaritan Home for two years. Ho w*as convicted and discharged on charges >f having procured liquor during th© currency of a prohibition order, and of having damaged Government property Robert J. Duncan (Mr McConne.) claimed £141 lis 9d from John Martin fMr Hunt), balance on an account for material supplied for the completion of a hnii.-se. The plaintiff state:! that 'itagreed to purchase the material for tho defendant. >cc that the men were pail, and stn-erviso the work, for tlie sum of £10. He n-iiecd to do so in order to get the defendant out of a difficulty, i which he had been placed by th n original csntrnctrr having discontinued the work. The defence was that the plaintiff had agreed to complete the house for £320. and had acted as contractor throuabout. The plaintiff lrul afterwards mad© the cost over £400. Tho £]0 was to be given as a bonus Judgment was given for tho plaintiff for JLI32.