MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 258, 24 July 1908, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. ! (Beforo Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) ' INSUFFICIENT MEANS.. " '• "' An old man named John Reid/ who had pleaded' guilty to n oha'rgo of having insuffioient lawful means of support, was brought forward-for sentence. /When defendant was before the Court a few days ago, ho was remanded in order to enable the polico to see if ho could bo admitted to the Ohiro Home. Station-Sergeant Darby informed the Court that satisfactory arrangements had been made. His Worship entered a conviction;' and ordered defendants to come up for sen-' tonco when called on, on condition that he oiitorod tho Homo. 1 OBSCENE LANGUAGE. ■ A young man named John 'Franklin, described by tho polico ns a now> arrival in'the aity,'pleaded guilty to a charge of havingused obscene language in Cuba Streot. Defendant, who stated, that lie did not remember having used tho words, was convicted and fined i£s and costs 65., in default 21 days' imprisonment.

v MISCELLANEOUS.. . For insbbriety ; John O'Brien and ,Michael j Kelly were each "convicted and fined 10a., in default 48 fours' imprisonment. Four first offenders were convicted and fined 55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment," and'ohe tfas convicted and discharged. '"' " JUVENILE. COURT.. CHURCH MISSION BOXES RIFLED. A youth 12 years of ago was' charged bo l fore the Juvenile Court with stealing the sum v r» t ' le property of the Wcsleyaii Methodist Church Trustees, johnsonvillq.. .It.was • stated by the police, that accused ..secured the '. keys for thepurpose of opening the church for a meeting, and removed the'money from the mission collection boxes iiisido.'; . After hearing tho evidence, His Worship convicted accused, and ordered that lie should receivo six strokes of tho birch, and be committed to the Boys' Training Farm'at Weraroa. The sum of 10s. 9d., found in 'tho youth's possession, was ordered' to" bo returned to tin • ■ owners... . ■■■,'- ■ CIVIL-BUSINESS. (Before Mr. W. *G. lliddell, S M-) - UNDEFENDED CASES. • ! Judgment for plaintiff by default of defen« 3ant was entered'in'the following cases:— . ' R. Hudson and'(S.,'Ltd., v. Win. Smith," £4 17s. Id., costs' 12s.'; Albert' S: ; Watson : r. Cunliffo Bros., £4 Bs., costs 10s.; Ilallen-. stein Bros., Ltd.y v. Frank D. Andrews, 19s. : 3d,, costs 55.; C. M. Banks; Ltd., v. Georgo : ' j 3. Woods, £10 16s. lOd.'j costs £1 ; 15s. '6d.; • G. Reynolds and Co., Ltd.," v.: W.'Cam'eroW, .' £19 16s: 6d;', costs 155.; W. M. Bannatyiia md C., Ltd;, v. Wm. Henry Frankpitt v 6s; - lod., costs' £1 145.; Wellington 'Traders'-' Agency (as assignees', of Kcmjithorne, .Prosser and Co., N.Z. Drug Co., Ltd.) v. Norman Stanley ■ Clarence Cole, £58 17d."' ' :osts. £3 19s:; Karori Borough Council 'v. ; : Olive Hogg, £5 19s. '3d., , costs Bs. ; Henry • ' Savage" v, R. H. Campbell, £3165., costa : |.0s:; R. aiid .J. Williamson v. Lay and Co., 35., costs ■ ss. j Henry Savage v. John A; *■"' Lawson, £1.85., 'costs 55.; W. and G. Turnbull and Co.' v. Charles- Stephen "Startup; ' £9 14s. Id,, costs £1 10s. 6a.; John : Rigg and Co. v. Amy Shelton,' £22 Bs. '4'd:'," 1 costs' £2 14s. against separate estato; Elias' John' ' Forbes v. Leslie Hill, £3 105.,-costs lOs.a Elias John Forbes v. : W. Igguldew, £3 i«" 3d;, costs 10s.; Elias John Forbes t. Jaima - '■ , Wills, £1. 55., costs si>. ' i . POSSESSION OF A TENEMENT?, \ • Bradey -Bros., farmers (Mr. Johnston)' •• sped Emma Barry (Mr. Toogood) for posses- * sion of a tenement at Ponnia. Evidence showed that defendant leased the place front' plaintiff j and that the lease expired in; De- , c.euiber last' after "which'defendant rented tha•; time. ; Plaintiff' gave her notico' to quit,''but'she refused to do • so. ■ '--v. ■' i For the defence it was stated that defend- ■: ant had been living in the place for . sixteen years, and had paid-rent to-a Mr. Gardiner i UPrto the time of the agreement.' It was sought to prove that at the-time the lease was signed, the house was owned by Graham. After .examining the certificate- of .titlo . his Worship gave . judgment for .plaintiff,and ordered , defendant to 'deliver up' possession ~ of the premises before August 23. ' Costs ' : 10s. were-allowed-against defendant. . UNION AND SUB-UNION. , / • The Wellington Timber' Yards and Sawmi!« ''O lers' Industrial Union of ' Workers.. (Mr. O'Regan) proceeded against Frederick, Siiiiliel, as secretary of . the Cartertou branch pf the same Union (Mr.: La-very) for £10. \Tlie'. ■ 1 return of a uiin i , -1 sought by plaintiffs, who alleged that ;the . ; books had" been .'-retained by.'defendant. : Plaintiffs claimed ,possession of the books/or ■ p tho sum of £5 in the alternative,' also £5 - for.detention., .After hearing a good:' deal of argument, and some evidence his Wor- , , ship '. ; 7 ■ : JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. 1 \. '.; ■V 1 In the judgment.summons case !Jotn Vogel \ : ,v.'«Walter.''Mll,../aV ;55.,' - 4ebtqif V \yas ordered' to .pay .on 'Sr. before >. July, 31',; 1 in, default three days', imprisonment.ln . \ ,tha case, ,H. _C. Gibbons .'and Co.. v.; Donald : ; L"< M'Kenzii),.,a ' debt, of .£2, .debtor; Wa6. or- ( ; dered to pay on or before! Jidy 31,' m. do', fault three "'days' imprisonment.' r : " LOST LUGGAGE. .- James Archibald Reid (Mr. Ward). pro* .. V ceeded against. Fred Barley (Mr. O'Leary) .' .. for , £15.. Evidence. showed. that plaintiff, 'I' a volunteer from "the South: Island,' attended r . i the last rifle shooting mefeting at Trenthani, i and at its.conclusion had.given;his luggago '■') to defendant for, conyeyanco to .Wellington., j Reid alleged that he had handed .Barley a • gladston'e .bag, a portmanteau,. and, another. . i parcel, but , that the gladstono bag had "never ; ,' been delivered or seen by. him since. De- ' .« fendant had the luggage of about,.fifty, men. 1 j in'his van, arid it was, suggested that tha articjos. had„got mixed , iip, the:..bag, thus . -j going astray. . , .' . v . ; ,,s , Defendant. denied that. he had. ever roceived' the bag, and ihe was perfectly ; sure that it , was never in his van. He had . ; done all in ■ his power to trace.it for . plain- ■. tiff. i ~' ■: His Worship reserved his decision. -~ 'CLAM FOR WORE DONE. '. . ' ' Charles Orr, carpenter,. proceeded againsi '. Michael - O'Connor, fruiterer, for- ,12s. r for • work done in connection with, the erection of a shed at Berhampore. The point in dispute , ! was.as to tho term's on, : whicli,the work was . ' to. bo carried , out. ..the. ,evi- .- ! donco, His Worship gave judgment for 'de- - fendant'for the amount, claimed and . costs: 2s. Sir.'Kelly appeared for.. Jibe defence., - . ; ; RESERVED JUDGMENT. A-CLAIM FOR STORAGE Mr. W. G. Riddcll, S.Mi, gaye his reserved •. • decision in the case of the Colonial Carrying Co. (Mr. Myers) v." the Empire Loan Co., Ltd. (Mr. 'Blair),- a claim of £39 - 45.,.f0r storago of, certain goods from. Juno 1, 1306, : to April 14, 1908. Part of the'goods stored belonged to ono Jessie Lusk, &iid tho baknee to hor, husband Geo: 8.. LUsk. On-Novettibor 25, 1904; Mrs. Lu«k mortgaged tho gooda ' 1 belonging to her to' the defendant Company - to secure the repayment of , £67 2sr-6d aiid m- ■ terest. Her husband joined in the instrument, aud became personally liabl© for tha •• same hionoys: Lusk, who had heen living in ; Willis- Streot, stored the goods mentioned;' i in tho mortgage and his own gotfds.'With' tho' '. j plaintifE iiV February, 1906. The manager for ■ - . tho defendant Company said he had no nohca of tho removal of the' goods from- Willis Street, but Lusk said he, advised defendant of his intention to storo previous to Hbruary, 1906. Dofondailt bceame aware of the fact that tho goods wero stored 'frith; plsmWf; , and, considering this a breach-of the'condi- ' tions of tho instrument, requested Lusk to point them out to their representative at plaintiff's storo. .This" was done about tho i . end of May, and defendant's representative then informed plaintiff,, who up.till this time . was unaware'of the fact, that; tho goods i'wore. ' under mortgage to his Company, - and that the storage receipt should be hold by it. Tho ,; defendant Company was aware that plaintiff J had the goods in store,, and had been , in- - > ; formed of t-Uo tnoitgaga, and that tho'storage receipt was held on their, nccount, Thoy wero ' in tho position of. a mortgageo in possession, and the argument that the goods woro placed in store without their consent'or knowledge ; although Bound enough • with , regard to acts prior to' Juno 1 was not so after that date; Tho later facts showed acmiiescenco in the storago by tho defendant' Company without t lomand until Septembor, 1907.' Plaintiff roliotl on an implied contract 1 on tho part of lefoiidant to (lay storage after- Jund 1, and His Worship thought the evidence clearly ; such a ' contract; The wholo , impunt claimcd, however; could not ha'ro- j loyered, as, according to Lusk, quarter of the, ' ] ;oods stored wero his, and'\vere not inchide'd ' ,'i n' tho mortgago' to 'defendant. Tlio claim ' nust'bo reduced by ohc-foiirt-h: 'Judgment" j vould bo for plaintiff .''for-'. £2?'. Bs.' ''and costs- j :6 - '-y : :