MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 155, 25 March 1908, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) MISCELLANEOUS. ' - ' Georgo Scholefield, charged with drunkenness, was fined 205., in default 7 days' imprisonment, and Willinm Curry, ;for - a liko offence, was fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Four first offenders wcro also dealt with. Joseph Kenny, for behaving in a disorderly manner in Victoria Street on Monday night, when drunk, was fined 205. ? with a default alternative of seven days' imprisonment. ■ Thomas Griffiths and Robert Williams, who appeared to bo very much the worse for wear,' had to answer charges of indecency, and were fined £3 each, in default 14 days' imprisonment. Frederick Parslow, charged with disobeying an order under tho Destitute Persons Act, was remanded until to-day. The defendant was brought down from Opotiki tho previous night. ''

' . A TEST CASE.

A judgment of some, importance was given by Mr. Riddell, S.M., yesterday. The case was one under an Act of last session, and was heard last week. The charge was made by. the police against Sutherly James Curtis and Emily Alice Curtis that, at Wellington on February 11, they did, In consideration of a payment, maintain- an infant, Mary Elizabeth Leitcli, for a longer period than seven days without being licensed as fosterparents under tho Infants' 'Life Protection Act, 1997. The facts wore that on February' 21 an order of adoption was made, under which tho defendants received charge--of tho child. Thoro was no question as to tho bona fides of the adopting parents, but they had not applied for a license as fosterparents, nor for an exemption from holding such a license, as provided by sub-section 2c of Section 4 of tho 1907 Act. ' The defence was that _no such license or exemption was required in the case of a person adopting a child under tho Act of 1895, if tho premium or consideration 'was paid to tho adopting parents solely for. the benefit of the child adopted. By the Infant Life Protection Act, ISO 7, Section 4, it' was unlawful for any person, in consideration of any payment,, to rcceivo the charge of any infant apart from its parents for more than seven days without being licensed. By Section B'of tho 1595 Act, when an order of adoption had been made, tho adopt-ivo parents were for all purposes deemed tho parents of such child, and becamo subjects to. all liabilities affecting such', child, and such adoption terminated all rights *anil legal responsibilities between tho child , mid its natural parents, except in tho matter of property. Thoro was a clear distinction between tho objects of tho two Acts. Tho relationship between an adopted child and an adoptive parent was permanent in. character, created by. an order which brought into operation Sections 7 and 8 of tho Adoption of Children's Act. That between an infant and its foster-parent was more temporary, and existed by virtue of a yearly license, which subjected tho foster-parents to certain liabilities mentioned in last session's Act. No person required a foster-paront's liccnso unless ho received some pay or consideration. But a child may bo adopted either with or without a promium or other consideration.' "If no premium is received," proceeded His "Worship, "then clearly tho adopting parent cannot bo affected by the provisions of the Infant Life Protection Act. If a premium or other consideration is paid to tho adopting parent, whether for tho solo benefit of tho child or _ otherwise, then it seems to'mo that, by virtuo of Section 18, the acceptance of any such proraium brings him at once within Section 4." Tho defendants admitted having received a prrfthium, and to having had tho child moro than seven days. Tho evidcnco disclosed an' offence. Defendants would be convicted, but as their actions had> been bona fide, and "the case was a test one, a nominal penalty of Is. only without costs would bo imposed. Mr. Myers was for tho prosecution and Mr. Dunn for the defence.

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Dr. A. M'Artlmr, S.M.)

UNDEFENDED CASES. '

Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following cases: —Hezekiah Osborno v. Edward Irwin, £4, costs 10s.; Wellington Corporation Iv. William Pye, £4 6s. Id., costs 75.; tlie Wellington Amalgamated Society of Cooks' and Waiters'. Industrial Union of Workers v. William Stewart Martin, £1 25,, costs ss.j.William A. Rowso v., Arthur Ernest 11. Stylos, £8 16s. 'Gd.,. casts' 255. Gd.; The 1 Stewart Timber, Glass and Hardwaro Co., Ltd., v. Johu Andrew. Rodgers, £'89 ss. Id.;- costs 10s.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. E. F. Pcarco, £6 155., costs Bs.; Holo.n Finlay and William -H. Brightwell v. John Vile, £7. ,95.; costs -Bs.; Co.,' Ltd., 'v. Edjnund Blake,, £5 9s. .lOd., costs iSs. 6d.; same v. Mrs. Mary Jano" Barrio,, £6 2s. •,lid., costs, 18s. 1 Gd.; Dresden I'iano Co., Ltd., v. Georgo Johnston Webstor, £7 lis. flu., costs''2Bs. Gd.; N.Z. Farmers' Co-operative Distributing.' Co;, Ltd., v.- Georgo Mitchell,'£3 7s.,':costs 125.; ; II: Oscar Hewitt and Co., Ltd.', v. Georgo E. Deakin, £9 os. (3d., costs 235. Gd.; Sedgwick' Bros, v.' Charles Edwards, £10 lGs. 9d., costs 335. Gd.; the Wellington Traders' Ageiicy (as assignees of H. Oscar Hewitt .and Co., Ltd.) y. Mark Newsome, £4, eosts 10s.; R. B. Davis and Co: v. Alfred Edwards, £9 10s., costs 235. Gd.; W. Belcher v. John B. Dalton, £3 15s. 2d., costs 103.; same v. Thomas Wallis, £14 7s. 7d.i .costs' 30s. 6d.; Levien, Slmllcrass and Co. v. Thomas -W. Slinn and Lionel Charles Carter (trading as Slinn and' Carter), £57 Gs. 7d., costs £4 Is. Gd.; 11. Oscar Howitfc and Co., Ltd., v. Frank Max, £8 4s. 6d., costs 235. - Gd.; Wellington Fresh Food and Ice Co. v. Victor Abraham, £12 7s. 4d., costs 255. 6d.; Empire Loan and Discount Society v. A. E. Edwards and A. F. Davies, £54 18s., costs £-1. In the judgment summons cases P. H. Foster was ordered to pay George Pinnock the balauco of claim, £1 os. 3d., on /or before •April 7, 'or to undergo 24 hours' imprisonment; James Salinger was ordered to pay Frederick • Brindsley and James Sharp, £12 os. Gd. on or before April 7, in default to undergo 14 days' imprisonment. .. \ ; CLAIM FOR- BOARD.

Harry Rosson, a young man, defended a claim .for £6 Bs. 3d. brought against him for arrears for board by Constantino George Nickoll. Mr. Jackson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Fair.for defendant.. Plaintiff said that Itosson had been boarding with him on and off for two years at 17s. per week. The defendant denied the claim of arrears. The •Magistrate commented on the inadequate ovidenco of debt which the plaintiff's books disclosed. 110 gave a non-suit and ordered that defendant should bo 'paid-, £1 ss. costs beforo a fresh action were brought.

(Before Mr. W. C. Riddcll, S.M.) .CLAIM FOR REPAIRS. : Curry and Heddenviek, glaziers and paperhangers, Wellington, claimed' £1 19s. from Ellen Hamilton, laundress, Sussex Square, for materials and work in-the repairing and papering of two houses. Mr. Peacock appeared for the plaintiffs. The claim was dis-, puted for tho manner in which the work was done. Judgment was given for 15s. for the work ill rospect of one- of the houses, and costs, 155., were allowed.