THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20025, 5 September 1930, Page 8

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

THURSDAY. (Before Mr Justice Adams.) CLAIM AGAINST TRAMWAY BOARD.

■William Borlase, a commission agent, of Christchurch, proceeded against the Christchurch Tramways Board in respect of the purchase o£ a quantity o£ scrap Mr J. H. Up ha ill appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. D. Hutchison for the defendant Board. . , ... , The plaintiff alleged that in -November, 1929, Iho Tramways Board advertised a quantity of scrap steel for sale and removal at the Board's yards. On December -Ith, 1929, the Board offered the plaintiff an option for ono month to buy the steel at 10s per ton, the quantity being estimated at between 700 and 1000 tons. On December 6th, 1929, the plaintiff paid the Board £*-0, being livo per cent, on the purchase of 800 tons. On January 2nd the plaintiff elected to buy, and paid the Board £BO to complete the deposit* On Mnrch sth, 19.10, he paid £250, completing tho purchase of 700 Subsequent to December tith, 1929, tho plaintiff found the ongiueer of the Board was picking over the steel sold to tho plaintiff, extracting tho be.st rails selling some to other parties at a price, in some instances, of £4 10s. This went on until it was stopped by tho General Manager. Tho General Manager endeavoured to set matters right by making up the deficiency as other rails came in.

Later the plaintiff ascertained that rails coming in were being sold to others, and 100 tons of iron and steel rails from the New railways, and of a lighter gauge than those originally bought by him, wero being dumped Qn his heap. It was alleged that the Board's engineer had picked out, abstracted, and sold over 100 tons of the plaintiff's best rails, leaving the plaintiff only some 600 tons of tho scrap steel he had purchased. The value of the 100 tons when reconditioned was £450, and the cost, of reconditioning the rails would be about £SO. In their defence the Board admitted advertising the rails for sale, but denied that the plaintiff was shown what scrap rails tho Board wished to sell or any scrap rails at all.

The Board denied giving the plaintiff an option on Decembeer 4th, 1929, but admitted tliat. on December 4tli, 1929, it notified the plaintiff that it had Accepted on offer made by the plaintiff on November 2nd, 1929, to buy scrap steel ;it 10s a ton. The Board denied that the steel was estimated at 700 to 1000 tons, but admitted that it was estimated that the Board might bo able to Supply about 700 tons.

Board denied receiving £2O for the purchase of an option, but admitted the receipt of £2O.

It was denied that the engineer or any other officer picked over the steel and sold any. It was denied that the plaintiff remonstrated with the Board's engineer, but admitted ' that n complaint had been made with regard to the alleged abstraction. It was further denied that the Board's manager made an offer to replace with rails that came in. After a considerable amount of evidence had been heard judgment was reserved.

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, i. Before Mr E. I>. Mosley, S.Alj DETENTION IN BOR-STAL. Percy Allan Williams, aged 19 years, was charged that on August 14th, af Christoliurch, he stole an engagement ring, valued at £5, the property of Annie Sutherland. Williams pleaded guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. Senior-Sergeant J. J. O'Grady said that had been visiting the complainant, and while there took the ring, which he later sold to a pawnbroker. Williams was 19 years of age, and had not done any steady work for twelve months. lie did not show any inclination to remain in employment, and although his mother was in poor circumstances, he had bqen loafing on her. At home his behaviour was very bad. Mr W. H. Darby, the Probation Officer, said that he was satisfied that it was not a case for probation. Williams's conduct was very, very bad, to say the least, and he wanted very strict discipline. It appeared to him that it was a case for the Borstal. The Magistrate: Have you anything to say? Accused: No; nothing at all. , The .Magistrate said that the reports about accused were very bad, especially in regard to his behaviour at home, and he was going to put him under very strict discipline. He sentenced him to dotention in the Borstal for 'a' period not exceeding three years, and ordered that the property bo returned to its owner. A further chargo against Williams, that on August 31st ho broke and entered by day the house, of Annie Sutherland, and committed theft, was withdrawn by permission of the Court. REMAND TO DUNEDIN. Alfred Ernest' Robertson, aged 36 years, was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order. On the application of the police accused was. remanded to appear at Duncdin on September 6th. LINE NOT CLEAR, John Leslie Ashworth was charged that he passed over a railway crossing when the line was not clear. He was convicted and fined £2 and costs. BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER. James McCullough McCallum (Mr M., J. Burns) was before the Court on two charges concerning breaches of his prohibition order. He was convicted and fined 20s and costs on i one chargo, in default seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, and on the other lie was convicted and discharged. UNREGISTERED FIREARM. Gordon Bell, charged with having in his ■ possession an unregistered shotgun for a longer period than seven days, was convicted and fined 10s and costs. DRUNKENNESS. Herbert Laeey, who made his third appearance on a drunkenness chargo, was con-vvi-;ted "and discharged. ■ A first offender for drunkenness was fined 20s, in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Thomas Christie Prescott, aged 35 years, charged with being drunk in Colombo street, and with casting offensive matter there, was remanded in custody until to day. REMANDED. ' Wiltiam Arthur Bowen, aged 18, was remanded until September 11th on a charge that on September 2nd, at Liftle River, contrary to his duty, he did open a postal packet. Bail was allowed in self £SO, with one surety of £SO. i . CIVIL CASES. . • (Before Mr 11. P. 'Lawry, S/M.) JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT.

Judgment for the-plaintiffs by-default was given in the following cases: —J. B. Nealc v. William Austin, £l9 Os 6d; Canterbury Industrial Co-operative Socieyt (in voluntary liquidation) v. J,. 8.-Chick, £3 7s; D. 11. Brown and Son; Ltd., v. <7, Dillon, £57 lis lid; City Council v. Mary Pitcaithly, £4 19b sd; same v. Francis William Gifkins, £ll 2s lid; same v. Coral Annio Buchanan; £3l 12s 6d; same v. Eleanor.Cressy Annie Coxhead, £7 16s 7d; same v. Lily Duffell, £7 3a 4d; same v. George Reginald Woods, £9 OS sd; same v. Margaret Eniily Clarkson, £9 19s lid; same v. Lillian Ivy Reed, £3 13s Cd; same v. John Trice, £7 4s 8d; same v. Michael Carey, £7 7s sdj same v. Gertrude Robinson, £5 12s 6d; same v. 'Felix Black, £lO 0s ad: same v. Andrew McCrorie, £9 13s lid; Gordon and Gotch (Australasia), Ltd., v. Hop Wing and Co., £2 is; F. E. Longdin v. Alfred Hoffett, £2 ss;' Heathcote County Council v. C. Bezar, 15s 9d; J. Logic v. C. Kerr, £2 4s; Rendezvous Service Station v. H. Lloyd, £1; Builders' Timber Co. v. G. Graham. 14s 6d; J. E. Hood, Ltd., v. .T. Cannon,-£l9 4s 9d; J. Suckling, HjJ., v. S. Clark, £5; same v. J. Quinn, £1 2s 6d; Canterbury Drivers' and Related Trades' Industrial Union of Workers v. It. Shajlbolt, £1 10s 9d; same v. W. J. Stuart, i'2 2s; J. Lamb and Soil v. 11. J. Cornwall, £.lO 15s. - -

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ■ H. J. Powell was ordered to pay Henry Kiver Allison and Charles Wynne ICiver Allison the sum of £2O 4s forthwith, in default three weeks' imprisonment. Ben Williams was ordered to pay Armstrong and Haisty the sum of £5 0s 8d forthwith, in default six days' imprisonment.