MAGISTRATE'S COW.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 14, 11 October 1907, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COW.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.J.. — - | POLICE CASES. There was a very light charge sMI at the Magistrate's Court yesterday* Two first offending inebriates Were convicted and fined 55., or in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Minnie Brown,, remanded from Monday last (on a chargo of having stolen tho sum of £1 in money, the property of Alfred M'Grath) to allow her solicitor to make enquiries as to what> her relatives were prepared to do for hor, came forward for sentence.- '•• Mr. O'Regan informed His Worship that ho had conferred with the relatives of accused,'one of whom had.undertaken to give her tho wherewithal, to leave the city. Accused was prepared;to do this, and her people considered that if her evil associations in Wellington were beyond reach she might, reclaim herself. Ho would ask that, accused should be convicted, and that a prohibition order should be issued against her. His Worship replied that much as it might be desired to follow,tbe course suggested-by counsel, it would bo impossible to do so. Accused was an old offender, and ho had no doubt that, as counsel had suggested, drink had, led to her downfall. He-would giro her a chance in another way.. She would, be convicted and fined 205., in default seven days' imprisonment, . and a prohibition order should be issued against her. : -

, CIVIL CASES.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.y, ; Judgment was entered up for plain* tiffs '.in the following ' cases>—Agnes M'Lean Field v..Christopher Seal, £12 65., and costs 155.; Rouso. arid Hurrell Carriage Building Co., Ltd. v. Roland H. Pegloy, £21 16s. 9d.y costs £2 18s. I ;.same v. Allan Cameron, £45 135.. Bd., costs £3 16s. 6d.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd. v. Douglas Sinclair, £32 9s. Id., costs £1 3s.;'Charles E. Young v. Charles Gerald Eagar,' £10 2s. 2d., costs £!• 10s. ,6d;;-' United Asbestos-Australasian Agency,' Ltd. v. Allen and Sons,.7s. costs only; South. Pacific ' ; Mortgago; and Deposit' Co.;, Ltd. v: Jtichard' Eagar, 12s: costs only; Wellington Gas' Company, v. Charles Sebastian Newson, £5 9s. 9d., costs £1 3S. 6d.; Commercial Agency, Co., Ltd;, and. George Rose -v. Eliza- . beth Parker; £1 125., costs 55.; C; and A. Odlin'.v. Wm. , E. Clark,' £4 10s. ■ 10d., costs 12s!; s'am'e'v. Wm;' J. 'i .'Holmes, £7'os. 6d., costs £1 3s. 6d{ ' Townsend and Paul y,. Alexander East'gato, 6d., .costs 105.;,.Wm. Neilly Albert' Morris, £1,125. 6d., costs 7s;.:' ; Barber and Co. v. Jesse Jackson, £4 Bs. "-9d.,.costs 145.; John..Rigg and : Co.'v; Wm. Smith;' £4 7s:-10d., costs 10s. ; ; E.H. Crease and Son v. George Hepburn, and John'Healy Hepburn,' £9 25.,,4 d., costs £1 65.'6 d.; Wm. Ryan y. Wm, Jack, 15s. costs 0n1y.., :' ;;;'.• RESERVED JUDGMENTS. : Judgment was given by DIV ■ M'Arthur yesterday . morning in the • case Bradley v. Aubrey... Plaintiff.' claimed £77 lis. 10d:, : the amount' of ' a promissory note, dated ' March' 4, ' 1907,'f0r £50 payable in month, and one of March. ,9, 1907, for £26, , payable in three months, made byidor fendant and payable to the plaintiff, and which the defendant-had ; not paid. < Plaintiff, in addition:to the amount;of ' the notes, claimed the.further sum of; £1 lis. lOd. for interest at the rat*' of, 6 per centum per annum down'to tho date of judgment. His Worship, in giving judgment,, said the .value of the 'car wasf alleged to be: £200..,.This was the value'put : on-'it by>the';plain*... titf, but ho' called' no- evidence to support tho value or any of the statements made by him as to the transactions betweon him and defendant. The defondant called evidence to the*effect that the car was worth only £50 or £60.' Defendant purchased ' the car solely on promissory notes, no: cash: passing at all. Oho ofv thoso promissory notes for!£3o wits paid by,the'do- _. fendant, who gavo up the car _to,plaintiff. Defendant said: "1 gave him(plaintiff) an order to get the car, and ho said he would return the' bills aa they were no good, but not then, as they were in other people'B possession. He seemed quite.:satisfied ■ with .the return of the car. I was sued on one of the promissory notes ; by Reynolds, for £30: and interest. "I paid if. When I, paid it Reynolds said' ho would make' arrangements to get the . promissory, notes back from, Bradley." Tho plaintiff said: "All tho'. promissory' notes wero signed in-the office of .Reynolds and Co. in Wellington, with tho exception of the one for £26. I never pro- • misod,to return the notes to Aubrey," Aubrey said, "What am I going 'to do about tho promissory' notes'?" - Nothing was said about return-; ingtho notes. Plaintiff received £1501 when he disposed of the car. His JYorship said the whole caso was most unsatisfactory, and • tho • evidence of the parties contradictory. >: He could not think that the. defendant would give an order for tho' surrender of the car without coming to. s'qino arrangement, as! to the _return, of the .promissory, notes. : Plaintiff was not ■ explicit on • the matter, for ho said.in his evidence, that "he(Aubrey) never asked mo do-, finitely to return the ■ promissory notes." Under th'o; 'circumstances ihe thought . tho plaintiff must be nonsuited. No costs.. would bo allowed. Mr. ''. Cracroft Wilson appeared > for' plaintiff and Mr. Buddie for defendant. Judgment was also given in the .cross action, Rouse and Hurrell (Mr. Von Haast) v. Buick (Mr. Loughrian)-. Plaintiffs sued defendant for the'sum of £53 os. 6d., and defendant counter-' claimed for £23 13s. 3d., and paid £4 Ss. 9d. into-courts in satisfaction of plaintiffs' claim and costs. The chief matter in dispute was £26 for'a butcher's cart as agreed. His Worship said there was no doubt that the cart was ordered by 'tho dofendant, but defendant allowed-'that he was only acting as agent for tho purchaser, while plaintiff oontended that the. order was, given by tho defendant on his- own account. ' Defendant furthor, claimed, that ho was to roceivo 10 per cent, commission on all business ho obtained for plaintiffs. Thjs was doniod so far as the matter of.the butcher's cart \vas ; concerned, but was admitted in regard to a later transaction. The parties for whom the cart, was made gave a promissory note in favour ', of■ tho. defendant, which note was forwarded to the plaintiffs. Defendant. denied ever having endorsed the note which was not-met at its due dato. ■ Later on a new note was received fromi thspurchasers of tho cart and'made : directly in favour of _the plaintiffs. The evidence was of su«rh\a conflicting' character that His Worship thought bomust be bound by the form of the second note, and conclude, though with, much doubt, that the plaintiffs, .whatever they did in thp caso of tho first note, ultimately gavo credit .to the purchasers of the cart, arid' released the defendant from responsibility. Such being his opinion, ho would giva judgment for . plaintiffs on tho claim for £26' Us 9d„with £5 7s. 6d. costs. As to tho counter claim, which related to commission and expense : effected, His Worship went through a number of items and allowed defendant £12'7sj" 9d., with £1 6s.- costs, ~