MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 145, 13 March 1908, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE GASES,

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) , : ; DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR. : Two young men, Norman Smith and Clarry Smith were separately charged with disorderly .behaviour in Lambton Quay whilst under tli'o influcnco of liquor. Pleas of guilty were entered jn each case. Sub-Inspector O'Donovan stated that the defendants,-.who were chimney sweeps,! were brothers, and. had been working all ( night. At.4.45 yesterday morning they were found sitting oh'tho doorstep of the Hotel Cecil, and oh being told by, a constable to get away refused to do so, and : tho disturbance complained of; took place.- Both defendants'had previously borne' good characters, but ap-peared-to have taken too much refreshment during the course of their labours. A conviction . and fine of. 10s., in dofault seven days- -imprisonment were imposed in each caso,. His, Worship warning defendants to be more careful in , - ' CONCERNING: A BILL OF SALE: i A. young man-named Frank Halligan appeared in answer to a charge that being the grantor of a bill!of sale to John Wilkinson, ho did on January 30 at Wellington, by the sale of an express, and horse, comprised therein, attempt to defraud John Wilkinson, and thus impair his, security over the same. On- the application of Mr. I'. Jackson, defendant, who appeared -on remand from Wanganui, w;as further remanded until Wednesday, bail boing allowed in .the sum of £50 and two sureties of '£25 each. ' ; \

CIVIL BUSINESS. :

< (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) • UNDEFENDED CASES. for plaintiff by default of defendant was given in the following civil qasesCommercial Agency and Bridge and Frost v. Mildred Cloake and Edward Cloake, £4 14s. 6d., costs los.; Commercial Agency find. John 11. Randerson v'.'' Peter Cumming, £1 Is., costs ss.'; Commercial Agency, Ltd., and Birig, Harris, and Co. v. Carrick and Co.,' £1 3s. '9d., costs 55.; same r. Albert E. Lawrence,' £21 4s. 6d., costs £2). 145..; ■JVellingt'on Fruit Co. v.' Florrie Wilson, £11, Bs. : 3d',,, costs £1 10s. Gd. j . Laery and Co., Ltd!, v. 'Arthur''' G. Dunn,' 3s.'. 9d., costs 17s;; Esther Austin v. H. Mitchell, £6 25., costs £1 os. Gd. ; .Woolf Phillips v. Samuel Briggs, £6 55., costs £1 3s. Gd.; T. and W. Young .v. Patrick 'Qiiinlan, £2 25., costs only; F;,Ai'Vaughau v. Joseph W. Pyke, Bs. Gd., costs.'ss'. rDickerson and Co. v. John Joseph Barker, £60 lis." 4d., costs £4 35.; Alexander Ross and Co.' v: John A,. Lawson,' £2 17s. •ld.y costs 10s.; Yercx, Barker, and Finlay, Ltd.','v.-6. B". Wratteii and Co., Bs. Gd., costs ssv'; " ; H ; . G. Anderson and Co. v. Bessio M'Clirichio, £1 ss. lid.,, costs ss/; same v. Kato Dickson, £10 14s. 10d.,..costp £1 12s. 6d. ; : Clara Lawson v. Henry Eteveneaux, 175., cOSts Gs. ; -Reginald Hudson v: Walter Reid, £3, costs 10s.; ■ Georgb Doughty and Co. v. :A.,C. Tremain, £19 3s. 4d.,- costs £1. 10s; 'Gd. .<

, ', JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ..' In; the judgment summons case Silverstroiam Brick'and Tile Co.-v. Edmund George Pointon, a debt -of £13 4s.- Gd., debtor was ordered to pay on or before March; 26, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. In the case, Archibald J). Willis v. A. W. Harrison, a debt of £11 15s.,'debtor was 1 ordered to,pay on or beforo March 2G, in default-fourteen days' .imprisonment. Harold Mitchell was ordered to pay the sum of £2 7s. sd. to A. W. ,Croskery and Co. on or before, March 26,1 in default three days' imprisonment. '•■'(," orders wore' mado in the following cases: Norton^and Co.- v. 'Wm. Aubrey, £13 10s. 6d.Alexander Croskery v. Isaac Clark, £5 105.,9 d.; Wilholm Jensen v. Henry Fowler, £10'5s. Cd. PECULIAR. ;ASSAULT: CASE. £20 DAMAGES" AWARDED. s There were somo unu'sual. features connected with .the case, Elizabeth Jervis, widow, _v. 'Chas;, Kuigg, a claim for ' £100. Tlib litigant's ivero both: old residents of the City, and.' their joint ages should -mako a total of something over 120 years. Mr.' T'cogood, who appeanxl. for plaintiff, stated that the claim was lor assault, and pointed out that plaintiff attended an auction sale of furniture held at defendant's house/and duly advertised in the newspapers.'. Counsel alleged that whilst plaintiff was sitting in an\upstairs.room l ,waiting for the siilo to commence, defendant/came into the i and,-"without any ' prqvccation, caught plaintiff roughly by tho shoulders and pushed her down- the stiiirs' and out into the street'.- vTho action, it was contended, was "unwarranted, plaintiff stating ' at the . time that sho had every right in the house, as sho was attending a public auction. -'Althoiigh the claim w { as for £100, plaintiff did hot caro whpthcr. sho got a penny. Sho was an old resident Of. the City, and was simply bringing the action to vindicate her character.-. /•'■' ■ Elizabeth Jorvis deposed, that sho visited defendant's 1 houso in Upper Willis Street oil March 9 to attend a Jublic'auetion sale. Witness went-upstairs and sat down in a bedroom, her intention being to buy some blankets. A boy.named Joseph J'ervis .accompanied 'witness to the sale. Whilst witness jvas sitting qui'ctly in tho room, defen-dant-came in and took witness by the shoulders and pushed her before him down thostairs, saying" Here! out. of this." Defendant, tore witness's cape,, and handled her . roughly.. (When; defendant got. witness out, of tho door, lie pushed her out into the street'.- When defendant caught hold of witness she said it., was-a public auction and sho had every right to bo there. (When witness was being pushed out, she hoard several, 'remarks' from .bystanders, including' ('tho-old brute," "perhaps she has stolen something." Witness was 6jjuyears of age, and had ncvor been in a Coiirt before. The only reason for bringing the'present action was to vindicate her character I Joseph Jervis gave corroborative' evidence as to tile happenings in the house. Mrs. Geary, Mrs. May Dickie, Mrs/ Alice Bernasconi, and Mrs. Florence Dodds, who were-ail present >at .the salb, gave evidence to the effect . that plaiptiff was roughly handled by. defendant when he was putting hor out. Several of those present took exception to defendant's action, and threatened to leave tho sale without bidding. Mr." Webb, for defendant, contended that if there was'an assault at all, it was a puroly technical assault, committed under the' very strongest provocation. .; ■ ; . ''' Chas. August Kniggo deposed that he had been living in\Wellington for 55 years. On Monday, during the time the salo was on, witness went upstairs and found plaintiff sitting-at the head of the staircase. When she saw witness, she immediately addressed him in an'insulting way, and made a claim for certain money, £150,, which she alleged was due.' Witness'objected to plaintiff being in; tho: house, and ordered her out. Witness gently and carefully down tho stairs, and then, pushed her by he'r. shoulders outsido of the gate'. Augusta Lavina Ambler, daughter of defondant, deposed that she ,was : present at tho sale, and saw, her father pushing plaintiff slowly down,tho stairs. Witness did not spo plaintiff roughly handled'. ' This concludcd the ovidence.

' His Worship held that defendant had not only committed a technical assault, but had Otherwise assaulted plaintiff before a number of, ladies, .to whom tho only impression to be conveyed by his action, and : refusal to explain,, was that plaintiff was a thief, or had done something wrong. While there should not ho. vindictivo; damages, His Worship thought there should be somo damages'as a lesson to defendant, who would bo ordered to pay £20 damages, and costs £5 4s. A TRIFLING CLAIM. ' . Mrs. H. E. Slade (Mr. Neavo) sued Annie Sarah Oakey, matron of tho Convalescent Home (Mr, Johnston) for £2 lis. for work

alleged to have been .done during tho time plaintiff was an inmato of the Homo. After hearing tho ovidence, His Worship held thattlio work had been dono voluntarily, and gavo judgment for defendant without costs. A BUILDING CONTRACT. "• Georgo Garner, contractor, sued tho Wellington Biscuit Co., Ltd., for £30 7s. 4d. The claim was made up of £25 18s. 6d., balanco of a progress payment of'£l4l2 duo in. connection with tho erection by plaintiff for defendant of a factory in Crawford Street; oxcavation done at defendant's request, £3 15s. 6d., and interest on tlio unpaid balance of tho progress payment, 13s. 4d. Defendants counter-claimed for £25 18s. 6d. damages for alleged failure of .plaintiff' to carry out certain' excavations in accordanco with tho plans and specifications. After being partially heard, tho case was adjourned. ' - Mr. Morison appeared plaintiff, and Mr. D. M. Findlay for defendants. PLANS FOR A BUILDING.- • (Boforo Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Thomas Stoddart Lambert, architect, sued Richard Giles Knight, sailmaker, for £5 17s: 10d., balance of amount said to bo due for the preparation of plans of a houso proposed to be erected by defendant. For tho defence it was stated that. an arrangement had boen mado whereby the plans were to bo supplied for £5, and defendant paid £1 4s. 3d. into Court, being this sum less tho amount 'of a contra account for flags supplied. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £4 13s. 7d., the amount'of the claim, less tho money paid into Court, with costs £1 Bs. Mr. Weddo appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Webb for defendant. : RESERVED JUDGMENTS. CLAIM FOR REFUND OF RATES PAID. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., delivered judgmont in tho caso Herd man and Kirkcaldio, solicitors, v. James Beveridgo Lindsay, • Inspector of Factories, Auckland. Plaintiffs claimed £32 os. 6d., rates paid by plaintiff ,to the Wellington City Council, for at tho alleged request, of defendant. Somo months ago plaintiffs acted • for one Dickenson in the purchase of a lease of certain ■ property, in Cuba Street,, owned by Mrs. Grace, from a son of defendant. There was ono . slight delay in paying over the purchase monoy to the vendor, as lie cm;ld not produce;a receipt for tho rates.paid on the property; Tho vendor was finxious to settle, and on several occasions his father accompanied him to plaintiffs' office. At .iength the monoy was, paid over without any deduction being made for rates duo, but it was afterwards discovered' that £32 os. 6d., tho amount sued for, was duo as. rates, arid it was paid by plaintiffs. ,

Tho basis of tho claim was tho following note, taken by Mr. Hordmaii at tho timo of settlement.:—" Note.—lf any rates are owing to Mrs. Grace, Mr., Lindsay, sen!, agroes to pay what is duo by Mr. Lindsay, jun.", Tho oyideneo was distinctly conflicting .as to whether both the Lindsays were, present at the settlement-, but His Worship considered tlioy were there. Considering tho rioto itself, ■ the Court, said . the 1 first. point to bo observed was;that it was not signed-by defendant. Section 4 of tho Statute of . Frauds provided that " No action shall. bo brought whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for tho debt, ; . default, or miscarriagcs/of another person,' unless tho agreement upon which action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof shall" be' in writing and signed by tho party to bo charged therewith, rr seme other person thereunto, by him 'awfully authorised'." The. Court considered the caso was ono of hardship, when all its circumstances wero- looked into, but, in its opinion, it was none tho less a caso of a promise to answer for the '"'.'debt, default, or miscarriages of another person," and as such camo- under tho provisions of tho fourth: section of tho' Statute of Frauds. Judgment would bo for dofendant, with costs £4 Is. Mr. Gray appeared for .-.plaintiff, and Mr. Ncavo for dofendant. ; : ■

: ' dLAIM FOR RENT: . Reserved judgment' was given by Dr. A'. M'Art'nur, S.M., in caso of tho Nonpariel Cyclo and Motor Company v. William lionry Matthews,.a claim for:£3 153. for rent duo." Judgment was for plaintiff ' for 'the amount' claimed, and costs £1 155., after* ah examination of tho rent-book. Mr. So.merville appeared for plaintiffs. •; ■... . i •