MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13410, 30 April 1909, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., presided at j the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Alfred (Seeker was remanded until today on a charge of indecent- exyosure. i "■' Herbert Anderson (Mr Leathern) was ' remanded till Tuesday on a charge of having received property he knew was stolen. Thomas John Ireland "Windsor was remanded till May 7th on a charge of breaking, entering and theft. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was gireu for plaintiff, with costs by default, in the loUoning cases:—Adams, Ltd. L\lr Johnston) v C. 0. B. Lamb, £25; S. P. Bull (Mr Leathern) v J. H. Hamley, £2 12s 7d; Trado Auxiliary Company (Mr Taylor) t James Purdie, £2 3s 0d; Cyclopaedia Company CMr i'lesher) v Nicholas Maloney £3 3s; same v G. T. Stackwejl, £4 ■Iβ; same v H. Woodhouse, £2 2s; G. H. Buckeridge (Mr Fleeter) v Chas. N. Hodder, £1; Smith Bros. (Mr Rowe). v Ernest Branaghan, 19s 6d; I>avid Coliins (Mr Hunter) v Samuel Smith, £9 7s; T. and N. Line (Mr Vincent) v F. X. Bartram, £2 3s; same v P. Kennedy, £1 ss; Christchurch City Council v Chas. Large, £4 9e sd; same v George McCutcbeon, £7 13s; same v Harriet Wood, £4 19s 6d; same v Athole S. Lamb, £2 6s; same v El.en Jackson, £2 17s 7d; same v Chas. Wm. Nixon, £2 as 6d; same v Isabella Doherty, £1 18s 10d; Motor lmi>ort Company (Mr Flesher) v W. R. Andereon £5 3s; Acetylene Gas Lighting Company, Ltd. (Mr Hunter) v W. R. Anderson, £5 10s 10d; Christchurch Meat Company (Mr E. T. Harper) v H Manning, £4 11s od; J. Harrison and Co. v F. H. Henderson, £2 17s. Edward McKewen was ordered to pay Munro and Hickenbottom £6 forthwith or go to gaol for seven days International Harvester Company (Mr Hunt) claimed £12 from C. H. Dudley (Mr Johnston) for a set of disc harrows ordered fry defendant. For the plaintiff company it was stated that defendant ordered a set of disc harrows, and when they were forwarded to him he refused to accept delivery. Defendant stated that ho gave an order for the harrows, but asked the plaintiffs' agent not to forward them until he (defendant) saw if the harrows would suit his land. Later ho found the harrows were- not suitable, and cancelled the order. Plaintiffs forwarded the harrows, the fact that they had been informed that thej sent them at their own risk, and he refused to take delivery of them. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs. P. and D. Duncan (Mr Weston) claimed £40 9s 5d from A. R. Craddock (Mr Hunt), for work done in connection with the construction of an electric lift. The defendant disputed the charge, of the ground that it was excessive, and after hearing the evidence, the Magistrate gave judgment for £25 and costs. Wells and Rosindale (Mr Frazer) claimed £21 17s from Mrs Griffen (3? Barrett), for extras supplied and work done in connection with the renovation of a house. Defendant put in a coun-ter-claim for £6 2s. The Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £20 4s 6d, and £5 for defendant on the coun-ter-claim. AN INSURANCE CLAIM. Thos. Dixon (Mr Hunt) claimed £100 from the Australian Alliance Assurance Company (Mr Herman), value of a policy over a building situated in Montreal street, which was destroyed by fire on January 3rd last. Mr Hunt put in the policy, and a receipt for the last payment made to one Best, an insurance broker, on behalf of the defendant company, and threw the onus on defendants to prove that the claim was not a good oneFor the defendant, it was stated that when the house was insured it was occupied by Europeans as a dwellinghouse, but subsequently it was let to Chinamen, who carried on a laundry for some time prior and up to tho time the house was destroyed. The company declined to insure Chinamen, and they did not receive notice that these Chinamen were in occupation, or that tho premises had been converted from a dwelling-house into a laundry. A laundry was a hazardous risk, and the premiums would have been much larger if tho defendant company had been advised of the change. Best admitted that plaintiff had informed him that there were Chinamen in occupation, but he was not aware that the company barred them. Tho case was adjourned at this stage for legal argument.