MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 252, 17 July 1908, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

POLICE GASES. ~ (Before.Mr; ,W'. 6. [Riddell, S.M.) : BOOKSELLERS VICTIMISED. EXTENSIVE THEFTS. ■ A. young man named Berijamin Diver, alias Drivor, pleaded guilty to seven different charges of "theft,, oii several of which he was appearing' oil feinartd. Tho charges were.: (1) Thoft of four bo<tks, valu6 £3 12s. 6d., tho' property of Bernard Whittaker; (2) theft of : cight books, i"aluo £5 18s., the property ;of S. aii'd W. Maclray; (3) thoft of tWelvo books, valuo £7 165., tho property of S. and W. Mackay; (4) tlicft of foilr books, valuo 325.,. the property of Whitconibo and Tombs; (5) theft of ono boolc, value 95., tho property of Wm. Mackay, of tho firm of S. and W. Mackay; (6) theft' of-threo books, ■valuo £1.175.,,.6 d., the propei-ty of N.Z. Biblo and Tract Society; and (7) lihoft of ono book, • rahi&i4{>Si r fthe. property of. N.Z.; Bible and Tract--Society^ ! - V. , ' . Chief Detective ' M'Grath informed , tho Court' that-'defendant had , been 'in the' stationery business in the Old Country, and-afe ~riyed, ,in" ;Zealahd;: inj. December of last jfijar. Tn"March lie. was "sentenced to two month's - imprisonment f or thoit, and between Juno, .island. July 8 had stolen- 30\books from shops mchtioned 'in tlio charges,. tho totalivalue -of'.tho.-ltffikschoing £22., ,/Ilie books, had, been ..sold tbj.djealers_.f(ir,'a 1 ' littlo over £6. Defdndant's method was to' go into tho book shops and look at tho books, and Slip v a--cStipl6"iip' his' 6oat"'beforo taking his departure. AH tho books ' had;' been recovered. Defendant showed .• an ; inti T mate knowledge of the valno of, tho i books when ho v/ont to the dealers. ; \ His Worship imposed a sentence of ''six months' imprisonment with hard' 1 labour on tho second charge, and three months' imprisonment 'on each of tho' others, sentences to be concurrent. An order was made that tho books should be returned to the owners. it a lit **•* »,.,»* '-OBSCENE LANGU AGE. . mail named John Michael M'Grath, who was stated to havo only arrived from Sydney on Wednesday, pleaded guilty to a charge of having used obscene language,!iQiutsidc tho Theatro Royal.' Defondant was convicted and fined -£5, in default 21, days! imprisoijniont., : ; ; UNLAWFULLY ON PREMISES. Emma Nicholson pleaded guilty to a oharge of ljn.vjyig T b,(;9.n found at night, without lawful tho premises of Joseph Malloy, Donald M'Lfian Street. Defeadant was convicted Vmn.'rii'dered to como up for sontonco when called upon, on tho condition. that she entered tho .Salvatioir Army' Homo and remained "there for a period of threo months. MISCELLANEOUS. (£ - woman, > Jane New, was cjiargeQ .that,'oiii December 10, 1907, at Mel-bourrip^being-bailee' of certain goods and -at £11, the. property of Samuel Nathan, slie did fraudulently convert tho same to her own use. On the application of Chief Dcc-ective McGratli, defcnclant was re-, ntandod until July 24, to enable a witness Worn . Victoria HO : attend. , .; jFivo' first, offenders for drunkenness wero brought' forward. Two- were convicted and filled 10s., onei n-as lined 55., another was and ordered to pay nodical expenses 10s.. 6d., and a fifth was convicted aftd v discharged. ''• - ■ CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) I,,']. T„ ; CASES. /: • ;v. ' "Judgment 'for plaintiff by default- of defendant wa3 entered in tho following cases :— John \Vfills Chapman v. David Martin £1 Bs., costs'-10s7; "Commissioner - of. Taxes v. J. J. O'Brien £1,95. 6d., costs 65.; Lewis and Woolf v. Thomas M'Jlillan £5 10s., costs £1 4s;: Gd.-'; & L 'l)indsay, Ltd. ; v. Charles .Eager £2 75., costs 10s. ;• Corheliqs John fJronin'vvi. Wmj.AV.eb.bt.jßlo Cs., costs £2 19s. 6d.'; Fordo aiid Cbm'phipy v. Giles Bradley, jun., £1 lis. Gd,, .qosts'jTsrj'Ellc'n Quinn v, Fanny M'Leotl, cost's only..'(l'2s.); Gordon and, Gotch v. Wm. J. Young '&2118s. 5d., 'costs £2 145.; Nieholas.,F.er.i)ji,iid.p^,v. Edgar, Hyde'£so, costs £3 8s;.;;,; ,<Pommoi;cial Agency v. . Win. H. West iE6-3sj'6d.V costs £I,Bs. 6d. ; P. Hayman and Company-JMiirWalter Fairclough : £5 12s. 6d., costs £1. 3s. 6di;,. Commercial Agency v. : A'fi)iie''Hall''l;i6 55., costs £1 10s. 6d.; United Farmers' .."Co-operative Association v. Wm. Arthur'.Fountam £7 35., lid.," costs £1 4s. 6d..; Cpmniejrcial iAgency v. Wm.' Higgins £8 05.,..M;;.-costs £1- 3s. 6d.; Samuel S. Williams v." : H. ; R. Flood £3'65., t costs 10s.; Grinlinson and Company v. Mrs. John 11. T'owers £7 2s. 9d., cost 3£l 3s. ,6d.; Thomas BU>CftV®tey<! t'.-.: Wm. Jackson £13 18s. Bd., 6d.; Mattcrson and' Fitzgerald v. r Et!ward'Bbvan, jun., £3 16s. Id., costs' 15s. -

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.' . In the judgment summons case, Charles Burdon Buxton v. Harvey' Dulidas, a debt, of £9 3s. Gd., no order was made. No order was mado in tho caso Michael Boh'an v. George Phillips, a debt of £4 19s. Question.- of light. ■ •;Albert Borthal Hansen (Mr. P. W. Jackson) sued H. W. Davis and Company (Mr. Neilson);fo'r. : £C damages to a horse and harness.. Tho statement of claim set out that defendants- \vere engaged on a plumbing contract oppqsito Messrs. Murray, Roberts and Company's;;premises, in Featherston Street, on February 28, and had opened a drain oxtending nearly across tho street. Plaintiff, an';oxprqssn\an,. it alleged, drove his horse into 'tho - drain, .injuring tho animal and dopreqiating/its value. It was further defendants had 'shown negligence in not providing sufficient lights to warn the ■public that tho drain had been opened up, or to indicato clearly whero tho crossing was. Tho sum 'of £5 was claimed'for injury to the. horse, 10s. damage to tho harness, and 10s. fees to tho veterinary surgeon. For the defeiico it was alleged that_ plaintiff had shown contributory negligence in not taking suffi- • cient care- when driving up to the drain. Aftor hearing evidence at length, his: Worship 'gaVe' judgmeiit for defendant, with costs ~ :CLAIM FOR- LAND:TAX-• ; The;? Commissioner .of'. .Taxes"proceeded against 'He'rbert, C;.'Faulk'e',,(Mj.'j§hy) for 10s-:- 10d."-land .'tax, -alleged. ,to .be .aileron certain land at Miramar.: Defondijnit §tatcd that ' owing, ; or: .diio. to. .plaintiff or • .'tK%',Crown,!'and detailed the -position from : -hisTipbint,-of; view. . After hearing: the evidence his-„ Worship 'non : suited :: plaintiff .without costs.- '' ' RESERVED JUDGMENT.' A BUILDING CONTRACT. ■ Reserved judgment was given by Mr. W. G.' ltiddell,'.S.M.', in the caso Bertram 0: Bar'tlott ■ (Mr. Luckie) v Walter King (Dr. Itnight),. for £103 ss. lid., being £35 balanco*due under a erect a house, £5 lis. for a rango supplied, and £G2 14s. 1 lid. for extra work dono in connection with, tho building. Defendant paid £46 lis. 9d. into Court, made up. of specific sums of £35 and. £5 lis. above-mentioned, and £6.lis. 9d. on accouut of certain of the extras. . Tho remaining items in disputo wore 'in,respect of extra excavation and carting, etc. Bis' Worship held that thcro was some ovidenco that _ defendant agreed to purchase certain material including a bench, cement, ladder, aiid Himbor, but the prices were not settled;' "With regard to the main claim for 'excavation 'and • carting, tho. Court- thought plaintiff must; fail. Export evidence was against.him, and his statement that defendant, practically agreod that the extra excavation should .bo treated'as an extra was denied by defendant., It seemed to tho Court thati plaintiff made a mistake in his initial tialc'ulatrbttS ; is' to the coSt of 'excavation.

His statement that defendant misled him as. to tho position of tho boundary of the section was not supported by .the evidence. ; He' had access to the certificate of title; which showed a plan of the land drawn to scale and tho position, and width of tho road, ad joining. Ho' knew the position of one end of tho section's boundary, but there Was no evidence to show that ho over attempted to locate the other end by checking the width of tln road as shown on the certificate of titlo from an opposite point! If ho had done this the Court doubted if any such mistake in excavation as he sets up would have been made. Judgment would bo for plaintiff for £11 Is. over and above the amount (£46 Us. 9d.) paid into Court, and costs £7 2s. were allowed.