THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16205, 7 May 1918, Page 3

THE COURTS.

MA'.iiSTEKIA L. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) 1) R U X KK X X TOS .s. James a second offender, was fined 10s tor drunkenness. A first offender wes lined 10s for having been drunk on the railway station, and another first offender vas committed and discharged. FALSE lIEPLIICS. Ilobert .Janios Davies, alias Cross,, was charged with faist-Iy answering questions put to him by a constable regarding hi-; i-jgi.-tration under tho Military iServi-'c Act. Mr Mai ley, who appear-xl for defendant, said that the man had registered, but had lo.st his papers. He had gone to Masterton to register, but had got drunk there, and failed to do so. I) a vies was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. CIVIL BUSINESS. In each of the following cas-js judgment with costs was given for plaintiff by default: —Frederick Trust-ott v. S. Harris, £2 lis (id; Dangle Bros. v. Alfred E. AVebb. 13s 8d; Thomas ,J. Withers v. George Hamilton, £9 7s 6d; International Harvester Co. of New Zealand, Ltd. v. John Edwards, £16 17s 7d; Herbert Henry Cook v. John Moir, £76 lis 9d; Ideal Loan and Finance Co. v. Loonard Llewelyn Grant. £11 2s 8d; International Harvester Co. of Now Zealand, Ltd. v. Jame.i Bowers, £1G 7s dd. CLATM FOR BOARD. Ilobert McDonald (Mr Rowe) sued Claude Tibby (Mr Donnelly) for £4, amount alleged to be due for board and lodging and damage to a suit lent to defendant by him. Judgment wa3 given for plaintiff for £3 10s.

ASHJiURTOX. vßefore Messrs W. W. White and A. McClure,

J. W. Wesley and D. McKinley wore charged with behaving in a threatening manner whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. Each of the defendants was fined 20s. 4 A first offender for drunkenness was fined os, with, costs. APPEAL COURT JUDGMENTS. (PRESS ASSOCIATION XELEUIIAiI.) \V ELLL\ GTO-S, ivi&y 6. In the Appeal Court to-uay, in the case Hopkins v. EasterbrooK, the appeal was auowod, and tiiu order discussing the motion lor a new tnal was set aside. As botn purtios had consented to the Court dealing with the matter by reducing tae uamagos ir necessary, a new trial will not be required. ■ The damages awarded in tho ouprenjo Court were reduced to £265 each party to pay its own costs of the motion lor a new trial and of the appeal. Judgment was delivered in tho Appeal Court in the ease Lord Inchcapo v. tho Minister cf Stamps. This was an appeal agaiust the assessment of stamp duty in rcspect to the transfer of certain Union Stoarn Ship Company shares for a consideration, partly in cash and partly for an amount of deferred stock in tho P. and 0. Compaq. The question at issue was whether the duty was payable on the cash part of the consideration or on the value of tho stock also. The Court held that tho transaction was an exchange under section 2 of the Stamp Duties Amendment Act, 1913, and that the duty was payable on both. The appeal was therefore dismissed. In the case of the Wellington Citv Council againsl the Karon Borough Counrii, a ca?o affecting the'extension of a eemetery, the appeal was dismissed.