MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13101, 28 April 1908, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., presided, at tho Maaistrate's Court yesterday. A batch of eight- statutory fust 01----fer.ders lor drunkenness were each fined os and costs, in default 24 hours' inprisonnnent. Jane Xew.-i.an \w sent to gaol for cue month's imprisonment for iraportcrning in Hereford street. A young man, named Frank Rogers, was charged with the theft of a totaliticket, tho propeity of Titos. Neville Wallace, a youth. Mr. Donnelly appeared for accused. The case for th* prosecution, which was conducted by Chief Detective Chrystall, was that at thd Addington Trotting Meeting on April 25th, Wallace had asked accused to obtain a 10s ticket on Vanish in the sixth race, from the totalisator, giving him the money to do so. Rogers had given him an old ticket, retaining tho ticket on Vanish, which had run second and paid 13s 6d. Wallace had then informed Detective Gibson, who had searched accused, and found a ticket on Vanish in the man's possession. The Magistrate declined to convict on the evidence, aaid dismissed the case without hearing the defence. CIVIL CASES. | Judgment by default with costs was [given, for plaintiffs in the following cases:—H. Pannoll (Mr Mosloy) v. E. Vincent. '£17 19s lldjß. T. Leathern v. P. C. Temby, £19 Us 3d: Edward Hilary Clark (Mr Vincent) v. W. Taylor, £1 14s 6d; Henry Berry and Co. (Mf Flesher) v. L. Levy, £2 Is 8d; C. Fisk (Mr Rowe) v. R. Mucklow, £1 12a 6d ; Booth, Mncdomald and Co., Ltd. (Mr Wilding) v. Chas. Rawson and »S. Martelli. £7 10s; same v. Jas. Reilly, £6 10s; same v. W. Gillespie, £45 los; same v. H. J. Pnrbrcok, £7 10s; -,ime v. Jas. D. Boyd, £71 16s -Id; Richardson and Stokes v. W. T. Splatt. £1 Is 6d; Cyclopaedia Co.. Ltd. (Mr v. W. Hayman, £1 Is: Williams, Stophens and Co., Ltd. (Mr Cuningham) v. W T . Miller, £28 & Cd; 4. U. '•itringor, assignee of J. S. Pyno (Mr ills) v. D. A. Ferguson, C 1 Ss 3d; Gto. Warren Russell v. R. Hay ward, £[ 18s; Andrew F. v. H. Whelan, £2; A. Hyde and Co. (.Mr Vincent) v. Arthur A. Narbey, £4 los Sd. Tn the application by Boath ni.d Co., Ltd. (Mr Cuninghain) v. Wm. Adams, for a judgment summons or-li-r i«>r £1. there- was no appearance of debtor, and the amount was ordered to !>3 paid, in default seren days. His Worship, delivered his reserve •kdsicn, in 1»1h> case of Harry Willis f.Mr Wilding) v. Frodoricu Cross and eon (Mr Russell), claim for £26 14s 3d, in resoect to a dispute over j, m:ii.ber of imported saddles, judgnmt Uuig awarded plaintiff for £15 bs S-'t and costs. . i Royd Bros, and Kirk, LM. (Mr '' Weston) obtained judgment for L's 3d ! costs against J. C. Ashworth. 'H. J. Ranger (Mr Weston) sued John Greensladc (Mr Free, instructed by Mr Ritchio) to recover £8 9s 3d for repairs to a motor-oax, ajid there was a counter claim brought by John Greensiadto against H. J. Ranger for £11. Several -witnesses were called! by : both parties, oonsideirabLo evidence ro- • volving round the eoccntffioities of a i carburetter, and much technical evidence was also adduced concerning gear boxes, friction clutches, magnetos, accumulators and thie other iparaphernalra. The evidence for the piajirtiff was to tho effect that tho car was a, "hybrid," and that all the repairs mado had been absolutely necessary. The car, it was maintained; was in good or- ! dor when it left Ranger's garage.. For • the defence, it was contended that 1 Ranger liad considerably ovea-chargea j defendant for the repairs and that ! some of tho repairs made were not required, also that the car was practically in the satire condition wheal it was taken away from the garage as it "was when it was first taken in to be repaired. It had subsequently been taken to another mechanic, who had placed in a new magneto, and tho car had been running satisfactorily ever : since. Judgment for £6 1& 9d was '' given for plaintiff, while on the oouiir ier claim, judgment was delivered fox £4 10s. . ' i Judgmemt with costs was give« for ' plaintiff in M. A. Gourfay (Mr R«we) :r. J. Tipping, claim £1 17s for boaird. | Chas. Bunting (Mr MoConncll) sued 1 David L. Mooro (Ma- lx»them) for £13 3s 6d for work done on defendant s [arm. Plaintiff contended he had not ween paid for the wl:</.o tim-e be had been ' employed by defendant, but the ,eviu ; dence for the latter, waa to the effect that ho had not settled his obligations. Tho Magistrate gave judgment tor plaintiff for £6 8s <xk ' W. Ilavward and Co. (Mr Ma%) claimed £2 los from M. Mead (Mr Howe) for damages dome to a gig belonging to Miaintiffs and for hiro of the gi2 fox one day. Tho evidence for nlnintiffa sivowed that defendant had taken the- gig out and had brought it back in a damaged condition. He bad, agreed to hire the gig far a certain rumber of Sundays, but on the bunday following .the accident had not taken it out. Defendant claimed' that tk> chaTge for the damages was excessive and that on the Sunday in question his nerves woro tco bad, as the. result of the accident the previous Sunday, to allow of his talcing the gig out again-. Judgment wa3 given for plaintirfs for £2 2s 6d. In the CyclonedJia Company, LtdL CMr Flesher) v. *W. Fletcher (Mr CasI.'ildy). claim £3 5s for volumes of tho Cyclopedia of New Zealand supplied, judgment with costs wss given for :>fondant.

i Messrs S. R. Webb, J.P., and G. C. ! fJmith, J.P.. presided at the sitting of tho Lyttelton Magistrates Court yesterday. i On Saturday evening, three firemen, who had bw-n imbibing too ficoly, had r>u altercation iuNoTwichQuiiy. Yesterday they apptaretli before tho Onut, two ofthem being charged with using ol>sceno hmgiiage, and all throe with committing a breach of the peace. Thoy pleaded guilty, and stated that they had been drunk. Michael Higgine wa,* fined £5, in default, one month's, imprisonment, for using obscene language, and Terence Smitii was fined £4, in default, three weeks' iniprisonnmt, for a similar offr-neo James C-uSlen w»e fined 10s, in default 48 nours' imprisonment, for committing a breach of the peace. Higgins «.ik! Smith were convicted and tUschnrged for committing a breach of the peace. A prohibition order was issued against a man on tho amplication of hia wife