MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13377, 19 March 1909, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mr H. "W. Bishop, S.M.. presided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The usual penalty of 5s and costs, in default 24 hours' imprisonment, ivas inflicted in the cases of each of four first offenders for drunkenness. Another first offender, who had drunk himself into a state of physical collapse, was ordered to pay £] 13s txl medical expenses. Alexander Cameron, a second offender, was fined 10s and costs, in default 48 hours. Minnie O'Cannor aud Jane Neville, two young women for whom Mr Leathern" appeared, pleaded guilty to importuning. The latter aleo admitted breaking a cab window. Tho women were convicted and ordered to como up for sentence when called upon, Noviilo being also ordered to pay 10s for the broken window and witness's expenses. Considerable annoyance has been caused, in various timber yards in the cry for some time past, owing to the mysterious d'-sappearance of lunches belonging to the men, and yesterday 'Herman Wind appeared on a charge of stealing a lunch, of the value of Is, the property of John Fry. The evidence showed that tho man had into John Waller and Co.'s timber yard, and while there had been seen'to help himself to a parcel from tho luncheon bag of one of the employees. The man's record showed that he had one previous conviction for theft against him, and tho Magistrate sent him to gaol for one month, remarking that the theft was a mean, contemptible one. CIVIL CASES. j Judgment by default, with costs, was given for plaintiffs in the following cases: —Wallace and Lawrie (Mr Rowe) v. G. Grant, £23 2s 7d; Fletcher, Humphreys and Co. (Mr Hunter) v. A. E. Hudson, £7 13s Id; R. W. England and Sous (Mr Howe) v. G. L. Burton, £15 4s 7d ; 11. Hcarlield (Mr Mosloy) v. J. Teihoka, £2 12s tkl; Craddock, Orr vi.d Co. v. A. IS. Mitchell, £5 18s; Continental C. and G. Rubber Company (Mr Westou) v. W. R. Anderson, £11 Is- E C. McDonald CMr Rowe) v. A. E. Southern, £3; C. W. T. Ogden (Mr Hunt) v. W. Cashmere, £5 18s 4d. No orders were mado in tho following applications for juJgment summonses :—-Chas. O. B. Lamb (Mr Ross) v. John Weir, claim £11 7s; Fraserand Maccassfy (Mr Hunt) v. Henry McArtney, claim £10 0s 2d. E. H. Hewish (Mr Rowe) sought judgment under a summons order for £5 18s against J. Weston. Judgment debtor was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. Lewis and Anderson (Mr Rowe) applied for an order for £7 Is 9<l against W. F. Waller, who was ordered to pay tho amount, in default Eoven days in gaol.

In tho action W. H. Terry and Geo. A. Torry (Mr Plunt), claim for £3 7s £or 67 weeks' rent of a paddock against William Fine, after a largo amount of evidence had boon hoard., his Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs, with costs.

Amelia Campbell (Mr Fiazer) sued L. W. Johnston (Mr Wright) for £50 damages. Tho evidence showed that in May, 1907, plaintiff had purchased tho stock, fittings, and goodwill of defendant's fruit shop in Christclmrck for £300. In the terms of tho covenant defendant was not to enter into a branch of tho fruit trade in tho city of Christchurch, but the statement of claim averred that ho had done so by opening up a refreshmont-room in Colombo street, near Armagh street. For the plaintiff, it was stated that defendant's action had been very detrimental to plaintiff's business, as plaintiff had lost a lot of custctnors. One witness deposed that plain*-' if's business bad boen affected to tho extent of as much as £15' a- week about Christmas time. Cross-examined by Mr Wright, who appeared for defendant, plaintiff said she would not havo any objection to defendant establishing a shop in, say, Sydenham, Linwood, or Antigua street. Upon this admission by plaintiff, Mr Wright applied to have her non-suited. A covenant, ho pointed out, was only "good" as long as it just protected the covenanteo's interests, but on plaintiff's own showing tho covenant was "bad," as it more than protected her interests, inasmuch as she had admitted she would not mind defendant starting in business on the outskirts of the city, whereas the covenant specified the city of Christchurch, which meant Greater Christchurcb. The Magistrate upheld this argument, and plaintiff was noneta ted with costs.

Geo. Allen (Mr Hunt) claimed £20 from Wm. Bryan and Percy Dawes (Bryan and Dawes), for whom Mr Beswick appeared, as commission on the salo of a property for defendants. The defence was that no contract had been entered into between the parties, and the Magistrate therefore gave judgment for plaintiff, no order being made for costs.