MAGISTRATES COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 24, 23 October 1907, Page 4

MAGISTRATES COURT.

. :; 'defended cases.;/ ; . .:[ . :. (Before Dr. A. McArthur,; S.M;) DETAINING A DOG. V '' ' , There was an atitiosphoro of. the kennel about tho Court during the hearing of a ease Frederick Biel, 'billiard room,proprietor, Pctbno, 'against 'Herbert Ernest ■ Leifihtoii, land agent;' 'fiutt; Plaintiff ''claimed'''the";' sum of £20 damages for wrongful taking fend detention of. a greyhound..' A counter claim .was made for .'£lo 10s., the, value of seven eheep ajleged to have boon 'worried.' and killed' by 'plaintiff's dog, arid for damage done to three sheep alleged to , have been Worried and seriously injured bytho dog. After' hearing the evidence of plaintiff and two of his witnesses' tho caso was adjourned until Thursday. •■ Air >' Wilford , appeared for plaintiff and iVhv Beore for defendant'.-'- : ~ (Beforo Mr. Eiddell, S.JI.) '.'. Arthur Francis (Mr.- Noave) claimed the sum of £36 7s. from Wright,. llanish and Co. (Mr. Duuno), for late delivery of two billiard .tables ordered by plaintiif. Judgment was reserved.' .-■■>■ : ■■. , ' A CLAIM,FOR BOARD AND MONEY : ' . : '',■.', '-'':," LENT..:.; .- ~' 'L , ~. Kate Hennossy, boardinghbuso ' 'kecpor, claimed £31' 19s. from John Ajlardicb, clork, for board and lodging and money lont between May 12, 19015, and July'l4, 1906., If was.'contended that the debt was contracted in South;'Africa,.'and tliat'repeated application bad been made for it without result. Mr. Wilford , for the. defonco, urged that the debt, baring been/ contracted in" Sb.uth 1 Africa, the law of that country must govorn the transaction. Under.• tho SoutH; African law,;he contended^'.no debt could; bo ■ sued •for after it. was'six months' old. j '"'"• : " •' . Kato Hennessy ! stated that previous ,to coming to Wellington 1 sh'o ; had a' boardinghouse ,J in , ' Johannesburg ''Defendant" -boarded' with 'her l for : .'ov'er .'two. and a , half- year's, and got into' , arfdars through being "out of w'brK He gave an" LO.U. for tho'siim'of £31 195., when ; plaint tiff refused to give him any moro credits :Application was made for the money both here and before she c'aino to New Zealand, ' and although defendant admitted the debt ho would.not pay. ;'.■■ " :. '• ; V; .■ : / i '■;: ,■ '" John Allardice stated that he boarded with plaintiff in South Africa. Ho paid the money in dispute in September, 1906. The 'L0.U...., produced was simply. a list of his debts made up preparatory to handing over tho money to plaintiff. It was not signed. When plaintiff came to New Zealand : ho mot her anil she told him she ' was ' starting a bqardingnquse. He said ho. would board with her''so as. to help her along and wont to 'the house taking, .ia-.friend with him. Plaintiff never asked, him . for tho money she 'alleged to bo due when shp met liim.V Hift Worship reservedhis decision .in order to look into the point, of South African law ', raised for the defenco. '":'.'"' ,''' '', ' . -. Mr. B. Jackson-appoarod for plaintiff. ~ ,'! ' ; ■' civil cases; '■■ ■•■■';. ,-. . ■ (Boforo Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) -.; '.>■'■. . Judgment was entered for plaintiff in'the following ciyil cases:—-Robert Martin v.. Wil- : libra Hicks, £2 Is. 9d.' coats los;; Palmer' Engineering Company, , Ltd. r. Robert M'DonM, £.6 '105., : cost* Jil Bs,. Gd. i Harr/ Crump v. Maria Black, £68/'costs'£4,9s. j'Hi Price . and Co.; 1 Ltd.'y. Charley. Query, £r':l3s.' 7d., ; .i costs's3'.; Hannah; Watson v; George-Morgan',i ' £4 os., costs ss. j ■'.Percy Chaplin v'. 1 Ja.mee ' Adams, £26 ,6s. 2d. ) ''costs £4 l'si ,;..';• . ;. : ; . . - ; .; " . ''".:■. . '• lir tho judgment'summoiis,-case H.M.-'the i King y.-.A. C.Stewart.a dobt of £9 35.10 d., \ debtor. wiis orderedi to. pay ion '-lor boforo i November:s,in default sev6h days'-imprison-; 1 irient.h.i.'ln the case of the , Karorirßoroughi ] Council v. John Campbell, debt of£36 14s. ] ]ld., debtor was ordered.Ao pay, on or before 'Novombor 5, in default ono'month's imprison-' i "nicnt.:-.. ■ : - . ; :'.; % :--.;;\ >■ ■. '. ■••;'■ ■■ • ■ ■ ■ \ \ , i : ; ADULTERATED ; 'iiILK. ~;.■„ ' ■ ; j 1 Reserved judgmentwas i M'Arthur, S.M.;'in tha-case of the Health * 'Department',(Mr; Myei - s)i!v. -Henry Bodloy. ] The information was laid under- tbo Adultera- ■' tion Act 188f), and 1 charged-defendant with having sold as unadulterated, certain, milk ' which was adulterated,'having mixfid with it ] formalin,'so as to ;i; reduco or 'injuriously ' alfect tho quality; pui'iiy, and true value of ' milk h.id'been put'in. " In , ' His - , s ; grcdient which might'render the milk ; mjur- ' iousto the health ;of ; tho person's coikuiming; ! it. , ' The analysis 'of l 'samples : of the' milk' ' nnalyeed by tho Government Analyst disclosed ' that the sample contained formalin to tho estont ; of about tbirco grains per gallon'. The' ' samples were'taken ! in ; the 'method directed | by'statute and placed' iji- - : stcrilisotl" bottles!' ■11l 'filling ■tho'bottles' iiifohrinnt used; a Bninll' 'jug : had been thoroughly, ] cloaiicfl.'"' Informant stated th«t notliing .' could have'got' into tbo bottles beforo the •; ;milk had beoii'put.'in. ' In His' Worship's ," ■'opinion, both''(ho. bottles and the. jug' were '' ;clctt!i ;and, the 'formalin which w.is fo'urid in \ the'milk .clid'.iidt'? o , l " o rr °ro the' jug or, tlid \ •bottlos.' 1 '" T.lio'|A*3t": of l? 30 entitled an In- .' Epcctor of'Niiisanccs or an Inspector, of . Weights arid Mpasuros to take samples of ; milk for. analysis,', arid the Act of .1833. ex-, .< toiuled'thjit'tho'-pnly persons entitled to take ' so as : to include any, person appointed by ja' , ;local authority to do or perform any act w ' ■duty.wliich might bo done or imposed upon ; : an,inspector. 1 . Counsel for.the defenco contomled tliatj'the only prosons entitled to take! j samples; were inspectors of. nuisances, an ■ ■inspector, of weights and measures, or an / inspector appointed by a local authority, and that an inspector of public health was not: entitled to take samples. Section 10 of tho. '.' (Public Health Act 1900 provided that the ' (rovcrhor could from time to time appoint inspectors and define their functions aim duties, i Under the sub-heading of "Nuisances," in ' the, Public Health Act, sections 67, to 81, var- • ioua duties; woro ascignod' to tbo inspectors appointed under the Act, and in, His Worslup;s jopinion the mspectc-rs nm&ae that.Act i\ycro not only inspectors of public hcaltb, but also: inspectors;of nuisances, and as sunh, , ; ,\tere ; en titled to t-nko-samples of-milk for' ;the purposc.of analysis, , Cotinsol for tlie.de- '<'. •'.fence also'arguod that as tho defunilant did not put forth and proclaim his milk as un-

ndultcrhtnd," . 'therefore' ; no' offence: had ; been committed. In the opinion of His j Worship the case came under the second of i the three classes of cases mentioned in the' King v. Evr'art (25 N.Z.L;R. 709) 'in which, I either from the language, or the,scopo and , object of the enactment to be, construed, it! was made pliiin that' the Legislature intended to prohibit the"Act absolutely; and the'question of the 'evidence of a guilty mind wasonly relevant for the purpose of determining the grantium of .punishment following tho pftencq. In His Worship's.opinion the defendant was guilty of 'Having, sold adulterated milk,, ami . must be' convicted and fined £3,' and costs' £3 10s. A second information laid under section 22 of the Adulteration Prevention Act,...1880, and Amendment Act,. 1883, was i .withdrawn. ;.-• . ' .' . . Mr. .Gray asked for security, for appeal, which was lixed in the sum of £16. ■ ' ' ' : POLICE .CASES. .'" ' ' ~. , (Beforp Mr. Riddell, S.M:) Four -first/offending inebriates were fined 55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment, at the Magistrate's Court .yesterday ..morning, .and 'another first offender was fined 10s., in default. 48 hours', imprisonment. ..■:.■ •. . , Andrew'i Hutchison, remanded from Mon-; day, on : a.'.charge.of haying insufficient visible ;means of support,' to, enable enquiries to,lie imado, into a .statement thathe had/obtainoJ '■ permanent work, appeared again.-. Chief-Detec-tive McGrath'informed,his. Worship .that ",thc c'ftso was an ■ exceptional one,, the man having endeavoured toVget the: only class of work ho wascapablp of performing. ~Ho was;now .in employmont., His Worship stated thai undor the circumstances hel>.was. ■prepared to allow tlio information to be,withdrawii/'_ . .A young, nian, .William. Newman, a.recent arrival from the south, appeared to ,answer 'a charge of having.wilfully.broken.a *?anp of glass valued at IDs., in. a bpardinglKiiso occupied by Ellen Ross in. Tehiiyson; Street. Accused, who. was under the. influence of liquor at thetinie of the, that ho remonjbered nothing about the incident. Evidence was'.. cnllist|.,.t6,, show that accused, and, another "young man ; were .under, the influence of,,liquor and when,passing complainant's houoo accused 'deliberately threw a , stick through .the window pane. , A fine, of ■10s., '.iriUi/'costs 135.,, in default, three days' imprisonment, was imposed. ..,',' , ; ; Fredoriek Lyness, remanded from Monday,., on a 'charge of yagraricy and'.,liaviug! been found oh .premises in Taranaki'-Street, with-' otit. lawful excuse, came forward -for son-, terico. ( Sub-Inspector OjDpnovan stated that the seorotnr.y of',the Benevolent;Trustees,Had ■ agreed to give, Lyne'ss another.chance, and would take him into the Ohifp'Home again. A ; conviction was entered by his Worship, who ordered accused to come' up for sentence when-called upon., ~ :.'.'!". , ; '