MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14599, 25 February 1913, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

» (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.). IDLE AND DISORDERLY. Patrick Butler, a second offender for j drunkenness, was further charged "with being an idle and disorderly person. Ho was convicted and ordered to come up for sentenco when called upon, provided ho remained for three months in tho Salvation Army Home. William MeEwen (Mr Donnelly) pleaded not guilty to a charge of being an idle and disorderly person. He was convicted and ordered to como up for sentenco when called upon, tho condition being that ho should leavo town aud go to work. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In tlie judgment summons caso P. S. Nicholls and Co. (.Mr Thomas) v. P. W. Bell, £1 193, tho debtor was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default iorty-eight hours' imprisonment. No orders wero made in tho cases of the Empire Loan and Discount Co., Ltd. (Mr Thomas) v. M. Murray, £10 Is 6d, and Garrick, Cowlisliaw, Alpers, and Nicholls (Mr Thomas) v. A. it. Jarman, £8 7s _d. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following cases:—Beath and Co., Ltd. (Mr Uuningham) v. Agnes Weir, £3 9s 11<1; Shaw and Co. (Mr Mosley) v. T. Mooney, £1; Andrew Lees (.Mr Cunin<*ham) v. H. Bairstow, £_ 8s; A. Peverill (Mr Cuningham) v. William Robertson, £20 8s sd; Alfred Burgess (Mr Wright) v. R. -H. Bennett, los 8d; J. Patterson (Mr Leathern) v. C. Parker, £2 10s; Dougall and Upham (Mr Upham) v. W. C. T. Hooper, £1 ls; Christchurch City Council v. E. S. Bascand, £2 12s Id; Christchurch Performing Musicians' Industrial Union oi Workers v. R. Woods, 13s 6d; Pidgeon and Co. (Mr Howe) v. J. M. Crosbie, £38 17s 4d ; F. L. Benjes (Mr Johnston, v. M. Mokomoko, £1 12s; W. Collie (Mr Nicholls) v A. H. Snook, £1 ls. JUDGMENT DELIVERED. Judgment was delivered in tho caso Smith's Taxicabs (Mr Wilding) v. j Brightling (Mr McConnell), in which I tho plaintiff sought to recover from the j defendant the sum of, £20 3s 6d for damages sustained to the firm's motorcar, as the result of a collision with tho defendant's cart on tho night ot October sth, 1912. The Magistrate stated.that in driving without lights on the borders of a city like Christchurch the defendant was guilty of negligence, and was courting disaster. The defence raised was that tho plaintiff was not entitled to recover on account of his contributory negligence. Tho . Magistrate held that there had been no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Judgment would be for the plaintiff on claim and counterclaim, and the damages were assessed at £15.