MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 72, 18 December 1907, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. - (Before Mr. W. Gi Riddeli,^'"V DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR. A plea of " guilty " 'was 'enter'ed^by^lbert f . Taylor to a chargo of behaving'mVsuch"amanncr in Vivian broach of the peace. Sub-Inspector, O'Dono-, von stated that'defendant and inotfier'mauwero fighting in front' .0f,..,-the'' Cricketers' Arms Hotel. They wore .separated' stable, but resumed hostilities,;.inuncdi!jtfe!y,' 'afterwards. Accused was larrestod, but! tho other man ran .away.' ' : 'pefcndant.'was'ycon-V victed and fined 20s.,'ill!default,'seyen'.'days', imprisonment. t' OBSCENE LANGUAGE!' ." Robert William Guest pleaded' : gii'ilty■ , ' , tp"; a charge of using' obsccne"' HfiguSgtt ? in'-ft:i'llil i '' ! way carriage on November 18. ,->.» ■ Chief-Detective M'Gratlr stated that- tho languago complained of was used in a trainbetween Dnnedin and Port Chalmers. ,' : 'Alf. though the languago was'-very'bady. it l ' ap'V peared that defendant ;was, 'fepdatmg'-words to his mates which had been "used : t'o" him l by anotlior man when a constable ; in plajh', clothes threatened to Srrest'him.';, Tlie train' was travelling, at a'good rate^but'pn'a'mval' at its destination Guest'had disappeared,-"iind was not heard of again until he was 'arrested in Wellington: Accused was"a hard-forking man, and - nothing was. known him. l His Worship held th'at, altliougli''thq : la®'guage was disgusting, it, seeincd I. that' th"o : other party was tho real aggressor;.'; Defendant- must be convicted,' and : finodf default seven days' imprisoiimciit._ I MISCELLANEOUS.- ' - , For insobriety John Morrissey, ahd\Cbarlra Sullivan wero each convicted .and ,-fifiod iiUa'.?' in default seven days], imprisbnmentj 'Uivtl'' Thomas Milligan was ' convicted fiijed 10s., in default forty-eight hours' "imprisolimcnt. Four first offenders Wore convicted and fined 55., in default twonty-four...hours'-imprisonment, and one was. convicted and ..discharged. j' - V i. CIVIL BUSINESS; V (Before Dr. A. M ( Arthur,.S,M.) . ~ Judgment was entered for plaintifEs-in the following civil cases:—Ellis and Manton tv.v Henry Walter Hewson, £8 • 85..-.43;, costs. £1 3s. Od.; Sharland and Co. v.. Charles Williams and Co., £16 14s. Id,-;.' 'costs £110s. 6'l. ;Dresden Piano Co. v. Ilobert Whiteman, £9 75., costs £1 f, ,55. 6d.; D«:atv Bros.-,-v. E. J. Theobald, £52 14s. 3d:, costs £3165. T. and W. Young v. E. J./Theobald;..-£102.. 16s. 2d., costs £5 lis.; Silverstream Brick and Tile to. v. Hadlpy Bros.; £7,-lis. 4d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; same v. Edmund George Pointou, £10 18s., costs £1 10s. 6d.Edward Sutherland v. James Henry Arms'trftugv't £4 14s. 2d., costs 105.,; Rouse,, Black,-,and. Son ( v. George S. Mitchell, . £3 Bs., costf .125..j . Charles S. Bailey v. James Moore,. £U-.125.,: costs £1 10s. 6d.; Wardcll, Bros', .and'. .Go'*, v. Edward J. Benge, £7 : 155.-. ,7d.; Icosts£l 10s. 6d.; Edward Hands' v..' John, O'Haga'n, 65., costs 55:.; •.Wellington..CityCouncil v. Harold Edward Ivey, ,£9„,Qs. costs Bs.; John' Rigg aiid Co. v. Eichbaum and Priest, costs only, 123.; .Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Smith and M'Coll,: £19 3s. 4d., costs £1 lis. 6d. ; Bank's, Co-opera-;' tive Meat Distributing.-..pp.,.-Douglas Bcngo, £4 2s. Id., costs 13a. Ernest Kernot v. Robert .-.Adams,.: £-51Q5..-. costs £1 3s. Gd.; M'DoUgall.-.audv Co. v. Mary Smith, £5:.,05.'-2d:, -costs-£l* 3s. 6d.; same v. Win. Mudgway.,-;;£3 tj 6s. 6d.,. costs 125.; Thomas Shields v. John;,J.'/Duncan, £3 os., costs 10s.; Commercial--Agency; Ltd., and Alfred Lawrenco and Co. v. Ben-; jamin Brodio, £115 Cs. 2<1.-, costs £1:108, 6d;,;'.. Pukctapu Sawmilling Go.y Ltdiv>,v./ •Welling--, ton Woodware C0.,--'iLtd., £40 65., costs £2 145.; Clarence A. AVilton v. Ethel Lcgge, £27 17s. lid., costs :£2; 145.. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. - In the judgment summons case New Zealand Times Co., Ltd., v. A. A. C. Stewart,, a debt of £35 Bs., debtor-was ordered \to pay on or before January' I' 4, 'in"default ono month's imprisonment"^ l liv-the case'"EliaUboth Lonergan v. Sidney 'Hanson, : 'a -debt of: £3 155., debtor was ordered to pay ojl-.'Of'be-: foro December 31, in default seven days!-' im-i prisonment. Charles Thompson Was/ordered to pay the sum of £4 2s: to William Brady , before January 16, in imprisonment, and 'Ernest ' ordered to pay James Sullivan- £ss6sr-6a;' bc-i fore December 31, in default seven-;'days', imprisonment. '. ' No orders were made- in the ; following eases:—Now Zealand-Times Harold' E. Ayes, a debt of £14'6s. 9'd.; RobertMlciiry Johnson v. Mona Forth, a -'debt ..of /Co 13s. 4d.; Wellington Gas Co:, -Ltd-.-j v.': Ales- 1 ander Sutherland, a debt of £l :-]/ls:-''3d.'f & T. Taylor and Co. V.-.Alexander; Sutherland; a-debt of £2 lis. 1 RESERVED JUDG •" CONCERNING A PROMISSORY NOTE. •' Reserved judgment ''.was''given^y"'Dr. ."A';; M'Arthur, 5., M., in the caso of the ton Loan Co., Ltd., v. E. Batchclor, a.claim on a promissory note drawn by defendant iit favour of tho Loan C 0,.'.'.: ' . , . His Worship hold that there was.a sharp, distinction between this caso and tho case of. the same Company versus Borti. In the pre-' sent caso the defendant was,the ..di:awpr,,n'ild.'. knew well that tho bill was an 'acqommgd.it-,' tion bill. In Berti's caso "tho defendant,was: not the drawer, and, further, Borti had been told that all had been settled, aiid nearly six years had elapsed. In the present caso the dofendant took part in certain,, bankruptcy proceedings, and tho .Court must as-, sumo as a creditor. Later hp., wislipd to divest himself of any such Jicnefit, ,if there', ivas any. In His Worship's opinjpn. both, on ; fact and on law, defendant was liable for the amount of tho bill and tho legal rate ,of- interest. Judgment would be for £30, as duo on February 20, 1906, to,date of,judgment, and intores't at the rato of, 8 nor: cent:—; £4 os. 3d.—making a total of £34 Os.- 3d., and costs £4 2s. Mr. Young appeared for- , plaintiff, and Mr. Bolton for defendant.. ; ( SALE OF A MOTOR-CAR? ' Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., also gavo his decision i in tho case-Frank C. Matthews ,(Mr-Weston) v Messrs. Doxter, Crozjer, Ltd.::,(Mr,..Too-. good). Plaintiff claimed tho sunrof £31.155.from tho defendant company as balancp duc to him as conunission on-the salo of-a^motor-car sold by plaintiff os agent Vh~e coni-' '

pany. His. Worship considered that, the. ovi- , flonco wa3 quite, sufficient to satisfy "the - Court that the purcliase of tlio car was in-:. troduced by,.tlio plaintiff, and ivas concluded'.' r ;' through, him. No doubt the defendant company, through,one. of its partners, took an active, part, in the.sale .of.tlio car, but had it, , * not-been for the energy of tho. plaintiff the salo would never havo been effected. Judgment would-be for-plaintiff for tho amount: ,' claimed, and. costs £6 55.,-■ I f ; A SHIPPING CASK. • -' v • " ; DETENTION AT NEWCASTLE. ; ; 1 .Judgment' was given 'By Mr; W. G:' Rid- . dell, .S.M., in the case Lewis Rodd, master, •mariner,/.y,;.tfe.'3iVestp"ort. Coal Company'.,,a' .» .PJ? lni i^fpr"£44" 18s. .Gil.., .incurred_ bringifig. -the. sailing vessel,' Countess of Errol. from '. Sydney . via .'Newcastle , to-Wollirigtoii. 'TK« ; ." c !y ln , for.expenses incurred l>y"plam-l" tifti during, an„, itiforeed stay,, lit. Newcastle whilst dpfondant.'s: vessel was.tjcing repaired...'.,'.,' His Worship li'eld that 'plaintiff, liad' substantially performed his part of. tho contract, and liis-failure: to pay. certain charges ' beforg.jbriiigijjj; option, although agreed ". 'to by-.ljinj, ;v9s;.not /;i suffi,cjeiit - to. estop him, when,-an,-amount,-,equal tp. the charges was,., retained ;: by_;tliti.--tlcft>pclaiit,' "aiid could be". '«• .used to .satisfy., tliera,i , As,■•to; the contract tho Coiirticp'nsj.d.or.ci.l-plarntiff'B, offer of £150 on .August l9;j,to.>defendant's vessel to 'Wellington was'" accepted by defendant .allowing him to take cliargo of• her, and en,'S a ßo.a,crew before August"26i"'.Tho counter... ;.o/fo'r 'of'defendant'S' : agbnts 'oiUj l ampunted ! "to ir ' „ "Miff^rit , although .'jiraintiff- freight, .the Court did" r * ;liot think' this fact showed conclusively that ''- lie 1 agfecd' :, to' do ~ the' work for. a smaller' J' -amount.' TH6 vessel was rea>iy°for ; sea'-on-August'-29j' butj'owins; "to- complaints Jior; condition;;by',,tliQ' crew,i-tber,Navigation at Newcastle,.would not. .give a jlearanco; ¥ortificate. '■ ' Tho. repairs;- specified'-"' TOro* ! .not ,r if!ffeoto3' tiniil September' 13. ir ' It '~ ■ jeomod : '.'to ''.the Court' that'' plaintiff' 'showed.'' .'a£# judgment.'in ""his-; actions it' Nqw-^/t castle 1 -; in'' not -requiring tlio/Ifdrino ' Dejjart-i' > mcnt"'fiS stat'6" ,,: exactly -wIiSL repairs Werb".'' ' " -;bcfoVe'''lio could got. a' clearance.''" In His 'AVorship's opinion it "was quite:-as' : •much •' plaintiff's 'fault 'that- the' vessel was ' ; ''dctaiiled' ir so'':io'ng as' thit''of . the' owners in 11 '• riot' having s lier'properly fitted out in ! thia ,v 'first 'instance.'-';- The l •'the work "was very'slaok', asithe vessel Ka~d ; to' be- sfefit ?'£ " a,': S'eSß lid" ti fti'(> '.for' '.Yepd-i rs 1*" feta" ">' .tlioj defendant- company was~liable for-'neces* . • ; 'sory repairs,and all reasonable i&penses wliirb ' ; '< p!p ; lntilf"^i'iis:-bouiid ; to : : incur; while "the 'r«>. ';paiFS'?avcre-M;oiug "completed;, but' plaintiff ■could'not'profit;_bVjliis own- retnisness; iindj ■• Ult the' Court, - tho ; 'evidenca ; sltowad ;that"'the'''repairs' 'shPuld'havo been'. ■' r c<Tn)plctcd''iu "considerably: liiss 'thaif -twenty-'! '■ foupdaysv' Making, allowance, for' every l d&-.' - thcnCourt: mast/hold that sixteen" d'aya' ■" " .was liberal and ample tin®: to have located' ■ ; •and completed . tho repairs,;; and--that timo smust bt> l'a]lo^.;?'Tlie. ~be ;assfesSed^at;'£lß.4; lTfi.irid^'^andf'ithfr,debit 'at :£lB2 Is. 9d. ; ,, leayipg. a, . balancQ,, pK£2 15s. 7d. Judgment would be given for . plaintiff for the balance,'witli costs £7 125." :Mr; Gray appealed ;f or j plaintiff, I ilnd Mr. ■.Blair for de.fendant.. -, ,„r