MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14029, 28 April 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ + (Before Mr H. Y\\ Bishop, S.M.)

INSOBRIETY. One first offender for drunkenr*-*;-was fined os and costs, in default 2 hours' imprisonment, and a prohibitio order was issued against him. MAINTENANCE. James Beattie, charged with bein in arrears on a maintenance order r, IDs a week towards thc support of hi wife, was remanded until Saturday "Mr A. S. Taylor appeared for the wife JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. The following caws were undefended oud judgment by default, wit], cost-* was given for plaintiffs :—Kavo an. 1 *- ( - f , r ■JJ" i * 50) v " J - MeClclland ijia los id; Dalgetv and Co. (Mr Fra zer)v. 7. McLelland, £7 Is Sd ; Domin ion Traders' Protection As sedation (M Cuiiingham) v. Lillian Carter, £2 7s Archer and Halliburton v. E. J Wake field. 14s 3d- T. J. Kerr (Mr Cuiiing ham) v. Mrs S. Grafton, £1 15s 6d same. v. Thos. J. Dunn, IDs 6d; Nov Zealand Piano Oompanv (Mr Wildm**jun.; v. John Robinson, £10 10s; R Arlow and Co. (Mr Rowe) v. H. Ijittle £1 lis 9d; Hayward and Simpson (Mi Rowe) v. F. Wood. 13s; E. \Y. Pjd peon and Co. (Mr Rowe) v. G. A Mc Ilvridge, £19 13s Id; J. M. Telford (Mi Rowe) v. Louis Brogan, los 9d; J Trist (Mr Rowe) v. J. Hevbourne, £] 15s; J. M. Telford (Mr Rowe) r. F Lurch, £1 Os «d; Canterbury Cvch Workers' Union (Mr Hunter) v. J. Willoughby, Gs 6d; Whittakcr Bros. (Mi Rowe) v. J. S. "McDonald, £5 12s 4d; Canterbury Cycle Workers' Union (Mi Hunter)- v. F. Howarth, £1 2s: Alexander McLean (Mr Hunt) v. A. Cooke. £3 9s 9d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES. !n Craddock Hardware Co., Ltd. (Mr Cuningham) v. J. O'Callaghan, claim under a judgment summons order, for £1 2s 6d, judgment debtor was ordered to pay tho amount at the rate of 2s 6d a week, in default., 43 hours' imprisonment. CLAIM AND COUNTERCIfAIM. Alfred Allen (Mr Anthony) claimed the sum of £29 os 6d from E. A. Hewitt (Mr Dougall), as balance due for the erection of a houso in Richmond and for extras. Defendant lodged a counter-claim for £39 10s 6d, as the amount required to make tho necessary alterations to the building, and as damages owing to thc negligence of the constructor in carrying nut his duties. A good deal of evidence was heard as to workmanship, the defendant alleging that the house *V 35 badly built, and the plaintiff calling evidence to prove otherwise. Finally judgment was given on the -•ountcr-ciaim in favour of Mrs Hewitt tor £15, and judgment,was entered on the main claim for the plaintiff by con>ont. CLAIM FOR ADVERTISING. "The case, Christchurch Press Co. (Mr Vipers) v. New Zealand Wholesale Club. laim £19G for advertising, which was idjourned )a<t week in order that it i night be transferred to the Supreme | ?ourt, was again called, and was ad-' nurned for another week. j