THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17940, 7 December 1923, Page 14

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, i (Before Mr H. IV S .M •, ! alleged jxdecent ASSAULT i v Henrv Edward. Lvons "3 r* ?'■ charged ;h« Decern oer let ho aid indecently a" uH *' givl uncier the age of 16 '-ears ~ ' " ■ ot * the of the police the rC . 1 cused was remsndea to appear on Wednes- j • iIAIXTEXAX'CE: \ Charles Henry William. Lepper I guiUy to a : charge],,> dia iaU t(> wi.n L.ie terms o! a maintenance order for the support of his wite, Sarah. Ann Lepne--1 una was in arrears to the extent of V«s' He was remanded to appear on Tuesday! CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment by default was given for the plaintiff in each of the following cas»s-_£ D Woolf v. Ben Leadbei-ter, £3 19 3 . Gd;" John ! Donnett Bruce and Eli. Scott r. Richard Ilenry- "Wakelin, £7l; B . L . I)lmor ' e f' =»«* ( lei Gorrie, £3: Booth, Miicdonald and Co I Ltd. v. G; Manning £9 13s: w.- Berrvman v ' W. Colbeck, £\i 10s: M. O'Brien s»V d C o ' ( LW.-. v. G. Grainier, *2 \u ed ; -Pierce Bros' I v. Mrs McGiboon, £2l 53 sd; Soutii'lsland Motors. Ltd., v. Maurice Edward Leech. ' £5 sp. I

Stanley Thomas was ordered to nay £GS 6s 6d to Mrs F. Parker, in default one'month's imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended if £lO per month is paid off the deb:.

Gordon Stephen Mills was ordered to nay P. C. Raphael £7 7a 6d„ in default ten duvs' imprisonment.

John Joseph \Vest<rarth- (Mr EL M. Gres. son) claimed from ,C. Flattery (Mi \V. J. Crncroft Wilson) tho Gum of £3 ss, being the balance ot rent due in, ..lieu of a notice. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £5.

R. Robertson was ordered to possession of a tenement to A. B. McDonald, and to pay rent amounting to £29 7s.

J. "W. Harris (Mr ,J. R. Gur.ingham) claimed from Mrs A. Barbour the sum of £146 83 for work-executed and materials supplied. Defendant claimed that the work was very faulty.' ' Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed without■'costs. CLAIM FOR PASSAGE MONEY,

William Henry Blower 3 and his 'wife, Edith Emily Blowers (Mr R. Twyneham) proceeded against Harry Drake, Motukarura, and Annie Eliz-aijei,n Drake (Mr A. ~W. Brown), for the recovery of £3l 10s, - representing moneys advanced by, the plaintiffs in February, ,19'20, to pay for the passage of defendant 'ind family Irom England to New Zealand.

Mr Xwyneharn said, there , was a. relationship between 'plaintiff und Mrs . Drake, and they had corresponded lor "4 number, of ..years prior to coming, out to New .Zealand. Apparently defendant ' and his family were in poor circunisiariL-e.:,-. ;iiid Blowers- had :is--aisted them.

William Henry Blowers stated that ..-the defendant was his brother-in-law, .-and had lived at Norfolk, England. He had understood that'his relatives in England were in poor circumstances. He suggested to them "by the medium, of a letter -that they should come, to Nexv .Zealand; and: mado -arrangements for the-passage out:-.. - "-

To Mr Brown: He had writton -t-o defendants, offering, to pay had written, accepting,the. offer.

Edith Emily Blowers gave supporting evidence. The defendants had agreed to the proposal' that witness and her. husband should advance the passage' money to the Government, as they were coming out jto itew Zealand a Government scheme. Defendants had definitely stated that they would do nil in their power to return' 'the money.;. Defendants had. Jived; With.; them for, a. few months, the -idea rb.cing w&t they ehotdd all go 011 to a farm.--..' "To Mr Brown: She and iier husvand had not naked for any immediate • payment ,• of the money for several months, aa. they did not wish to be hard upon the defendants.

' Harry Drake,' farm hana; Motukarara, said that' up till two-years! ago he. had been working in Norfolk, England, receiving £2 •10s a week. Plaintiffs wrote several t.i'nes asking'if defendant rind his wife Would come out to New Zealand. He heard no .word regarding the payment-.**'the m°»eyr' Neither plaintiff. had made any -demands "on themfor the return of the money. He thought that the money had been advanced aa a matter of kindness. ■

After hearing the evidence of the second defendant the Magistrate said that whatever had been expressed between the parties, there was a strong. inference that ihe Jnonfey had been paid' over for the use of the defendants, and inferen/fcaHy at their Request. It. was clear., that the plaintiffs were entitled io siicoeed. Judgment would be given for the amount; claimed..