THE COURTS.
MAGISTERIAL.
(Befoiv; Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two first offenders were each fined •3s. with the usual alternative, while another was fined 10s. Annie Quinn, a second offender, was fined 10s. BREACH OF ORDER, David John Hildyara was charged with beinn found drunk and with a breach of his prohibition order. On the first charge he was lined 20?, and on the other ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. "And I will send you to Pakntoa if you oome_ up again/' said the Magistrate. "Very good," replied, accused, ns he walked out of Court. REMANDED. Samuel Findiav was charged with being idle and disorderly, having insufficient lawful means of support. Sub-Inspector Mullaney stated that accused was now in hospital, in a bad state; therefore, he would ask for a week's remand. This was granted. MAINTENANCE. Samuel Sandford (Mr Cassidy) was charged with failing to provide maintenanco for his wile. The arrears due on the 19th Dewmber amounted to £17. His wife, in giving evidence, stated that she wished to liavo nothing more to do with hiin. and would eeek a divorce. She had so far got on without him, and she would continue to do so. She added that sho had experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining any maintenance from him, and he had .sometimes left her starving. Accused was accordingly discharged. CIVIL BUSINESS. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiif by default: Beath and Co.. Ltd. v. George Beard, £5 9s (id; Christchurch City Council v. Robert Howie, £29 Is 8d; F. D. Kesteven v. N. M. Manson, £10; The Imperial Conservatory of Music v. W. Smith, £1 15s 6d; i'\ Drury and Son v. Alexander Forbes, £11 17s 3d; John Gilmore v. John Morgan, £3 6s 9d. John Stevenson v. James Bunting, £4 4s: Cliristchurch Operativo Bootmakers' Union v. James Taylor. 15s; Dt. Alfred Foster v. Alexander Genet, £1 Is; J. Ballantyno and Co. v. John Colin McCfoll, £4 Is 7d. DEFENDED CASES. I Win J>. Berry and Co. (Mr Johnston) sued Reginald D. Adams (Mr | Thomas) for £18 lis 6d, cost of repair work done on defendant's motor-car. ' After hearing lengthy evidence tho case was adjourned for a week. Thomas Waddell and Sons. Ltd. (Mr Thomas) sued Herbert Mcllroy (Mr Johnston) for £3 3s, in lieu of notice of the termination of employment. The point at issue was whether defendant should have left at an hour's notice or given a week's notice, ho, being paid by tho hour. His Worship reserved his decision Halcrow and Ingram (Mr MacDougall). claimed £127 lGs 3d from Bracey Wilson (Mr Thomas), being £115 balance duo on a K.R.I.T. automobile, and the balance, £12 16s 3d, for goods supplied. Defendant put in a counter-claim for £23 Is for replacements ho had to make. On Lis Worship's advice, > plaintiffs \ agreed to accept a non-suit on the main claim; 17s 3d was allowed on the minor claim, and the counter-claim was disallowed.
THE COURTS.
Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15895, 8 May 1917, Page 3
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in