MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13905, 2 December 1910, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before -Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Samuel "Wilson was charged with having, on November 29th, at Addington, stolen from the residence of John Jaeobscn, jewellery and silverware of a total value of £9. Last month accused had been convicted of theft and had been ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, provicfed that he remained in the Salvation Army Home till a situation was obtained "for him in the country. Chief Detective Bishop stated that accused only stayed in tho house for two days, and shortly after committed the second offence. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on both charges, the sentences to be concurrent. The Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs, in th© following cases: —Christchurch Meat Company, Ltd. (Mr Rowe) v. 11. Frew, £1 15s 7d; Grant Bros. (Mr A. S. Taylor) v. L. Pope, £6 6s 6d; Wardell Bros. v. Bridget Priest, £4 Is 8d; Dr. A. J. Orchard (Mr A. S. Taylor) v. A. Watson, £3 10s 6d. Andrew Lees (Mr A. S. Taylor) applied for an order against E. Roberts on a judgment summons for £3 3s Bd. Ap order was mado for payment forthwith, or in default three days' imprisonment. Colonel Thomas Jowsey (Mr Dougall) sued Frederick Eric Hare (Mr Leathern) for £50, return of a deposit paid on property, which plaintiff intended to purchase. The negotiations fell through, and plaintiff now sued for a refund of .the deposit. Plaintiff gave evidence as to the transactions. He had never received payment of the deposit, although he had made many applications for it. Mrs Jowsey and L. C. Colley, at the time working with defendant, save corroborative evidence. For the defence it was alleged that the money had been paid, and the produced receipt had been signed by plaintiff. Defendant gave evidence in support of the contention. The Magistrate said that the onus lay on the counsel for the plaintiff to prove that the receipt was not genuine. Plaintiff was a well-known business man, and should be able to account for the presence of the receipt. As he could not account for it, the Court would register judgment for the defendant, with costs. In the case F. D. Kesteven U-lr Leathern) v. T. O'Connor, defendant entered a defence. However, after listening to the evidence, the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for _.lo 14s 2d, and costs.