MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13646, 1 February 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) One rirst offender for drunkenness was fined os and costs, in default i! 4 hours' imprisonment. John Gallagher VMS sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for a fourth offence oi ! drunkenness within six months, and wi>s convicted on a charge of having refused to quit the Excelsior Hotel, and discharged Francis O'Neill, an old offender, was lined 20s and costs, in de-fi-.ult seven days' imprisonment', for drunkenness. James Channingßagnell, whose police record was fairly long, was convicted of drunkenness, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on a charge indecent exposure. William Maurice Hawkins was nned 2s 6d and costs for having ridden a bicycle on a footpath, «n»id Matthew Alexander and Mary Wilson, for similar offences, were each lined 5s and Richard Seddon was fined 20s and cests for having ridden a motor cycle over a street crossing at other than a walking pace. Frederick Turner, tor a similar breach of the city by-laws, with a baker's cart, was fined 10s and costs. William Gimblett was ordered to pay 10s and costs for having left a vehicle unattended in High street.

(Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) Judgment by default, with costs, was givon for plaintiffs in the following cases:— J. E. Pruden (Mr Howe) v. J. B. McKenzie, £10; Wane, Hockley and Co. (Mr Acland) v. Dr. Wm. Anderson (Rotorue), £0 17s .xl; S. C. Collins (Mr Leathern) v. W. ltickards, £I.' In the ©ase, F. D. Kesteyen (Mr Leathern) v. M. V. Hill, claim under a judgment summons order for £151 15s, and a further claim tor £71, in which the same parties were concerned, tljcre was no ««P ea °* ment *<Lebiorf whoWee 1 %¥&&*& to #ay the amount forthwith, in : default three months' imprisonment on. each, claim. In John Ciwrke (Mr Vincent) v. H. D. Jarvis, claim £13 12s lid, judgmentdebtor did not .appear. "Mr Vincent stated that £1 had since been paid, and the Magistrate ordered the debtor to pay the balance at once, with the alternative of seven days in gaol. Huston Curlett (Mr Beswick) cued W. J. F. Lelicvre (Mr JJ.unt) for £23 8s 4d, as (plaintiff's solicitor's costs in connection with the negotiation of a loan. After a good deal of evidence the case was adjourned until February 9th, to enable further evidence to be put uu F. K. Hunt (Mr Leathern) sought to recover £15 paid for • a horse purchased from Wm. Boyd (Mr Johnston). The plaintiff alleged that the horse was of a vicious disposition, but the defence was that the animal had no vice. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs.

(Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) The Trade Auxiliary Company (Mr Mutf) claimed £3 11s Gd from C. Hogland (Mr Cunningham) for a subscription to a paper. He eaid that he had cancelled tho subscription, and judgment was given for the defendant with costs. Thomas Day (Mr Donnelly) claimed £12 13s from W. A. Low (Mr Cassidy) for board and lodging, wages, and a steamer far© from Wellington to Lyttelton. The plaintiff stated that he was engaged by the defendant for Pollard's Opera Company in Auckland as a clerk at £1 a week and board and lodging. He was told to continue with the company until a man named Moss joined, it. It was thought that Moss would be met in Palmerston N'ortli. He w-aa paid for the last time on December 3rd at Palmerston North, and he was told then to go to Christchuroh to wait the company there. He paid his faro to Christchurch. Men the company arrived in Christchurch he was told by Low, for Mr PoLiard, that he was not wanted. The defence, was that the plaintiff was engaged hi Auckland to tour the goldfie-lds and afterwards to go to Palmer&ton North. There he finished ■« i£h the company. The company paid his fare to Wellington, whore the plaintiff said that he would try to obtain employment with J. C. Williamson's companies. Day was never t»ld to eomo to Chrisfcchureh. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs.

"W. Scales and Co. (Mr Fraser) claimed £32 11s Id from Joseph Wacked (Mr Cassidy) for clotli supplied. The defence was that the cloth ivas pcor in quality, and ivas only ordered on condition that it was suitable. Judgment was given for the plaintiff.