MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 489, 23 April 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

V>r; AN- ADOPTED ;CmLD'S- ; WELFAIIE.;i;, '.- ; i T fe aii Adopted child of Alfred •■ Aouthee,.farmer,,at, llatlda' Annie Southee,-was of, a Court% in'auswor to a charge ?k^' noting:: a. child.: Stanley: I; ■SHh^; U ndortha age of iikely to .cause him.unnecessary suffering or' i fl : Wry, to. his .health;. Evidence was given for the ■■- proseout.qn- that- and'' a Sri fe* « £ ."sited: their house on.Apnl island :found the- child in' a condition. The child,.which 'canio out'from hungry, lira,;. Southee.■ and her daughter .'vert ■awayat Hu tforthe;day- a nd Mr.vgouthee wis .worldng.jn.thoJush.'.When the cohstableVobk charge of :the child j.nd later met Mrs SoVtheo sH.it was.alleged; said, "I am'glad vou ;:nfo;,taki n g;him,aw«j. I;an. sick and tired of ■ i m .- mo in the first ■place,:; .Mr. Southee said,; when seen later/that it. was-hard ; lnok : :for;;h(m,- to be■;sumriionsod. vHe.was put.working all day, but./when he was :home,;:h6. was good/to, the child. Six month? / before lie had- had an .unpleasantness with his her .^oingjout ;and haying ;the /child. She.then promised-tq,-treat.the eMldbettcr in future.; Another;;witness,;;-Who had been working near the Southoe's*;liouse iiuFobriiary «aid . he.,had,.on.onb;;6ccasion,'Eeen; ; the child tied round..- the waist .with ,a: rope- to ..a /verandah : post .for at least, four, hours.-: A: third witness remembered haying seen -the child .'tied to a log, Jackson,;for tho de&mco,'. said: the' position was that /Mrs. Ssuthea- had ,'ia young : daughter, and her father- ami vmdther lived . cl , os< V'? TmV the rcusfom Yto -allow "the adopted child to'play about all day with Mrs. .Southee sJhttlo girl, ,;and; it was treated in exactly the same way as defendants' own child. Jn, the clay the polico visited the house Mrs. .Southee had'.occasion toVgo to the Hutt, and as..she. could- not get. tho trap/she took her .daughter for. 'company.-„Sho left'home .at 11.30 ..a.m.'after giving the. little boy some lunch, and returned at f 3.55 p.m. ■■■ .There. ' was a ■ general understanding ■ that .the/ feinalo defendant's father, who Was'always about.the place, should keep,an eye 011 the, children when the elders were away. .She had.. not";tied ■ tho child .up. ■ rhe child 3.clothes .were certainly torn to Tib.bons, ns had been stated, but this was nccofinted for by tho fact that ho had bcon'play.lng;with the dog. '. .' ,]'-;,. -. 'His; Worship'reviewed ,'tne'casb at considerable length. ; Tln child appeared to have been • fairly well maintained, ■and the'. Court'was prepared to accept'the explanation as to how the clothes became torn '■ to/-rag's. : !'l'ho; child had been: tied up once,-if not twice, and it might bo presumed that if ithad been tied up once it had.been tied up more often. Oli the evidence,,, however, the Court must' dismiss tho information'against; tho'female defendant., As to. the • male defendant there was no evidence to'show that he had any knowledge of the acts complained of. 'fhe information against him would be dismissed. , '

EACECOI7ESE: AMENITIES. '-~ , Bartholomew Mahoney,pleaded.not guilty to a charge of having used obscene language on the Trenthani Racecourse. After hearing tho evidence, acoused remarked that he was robbed of 31 on the course. He was consequently excited, and did not remember having used obsoene language, Station Sergeant Darby in- '• formed the Court that there were 38 previous convictions against accused for drunKenness, obsoene language,'and disorderly conduct. His ' Worship imposed a sentence of H days', imprisonment. ..'■■- ■'':■; ■■ : .--r' -.' <: ;:broke : a"{ glass doob. • ;'•■': John Cunritied Cook pleaded guilty to having : wilfully broken a pane of glass, valued at 33 7s. Gdi.thp.property of A. flow. According to the police evidence, acoused was drinking in Barrett's Hotel, when ho deliberately broko the ' glass in one-of the doors. Accused was con- : vict'ed-and fined 205., and ordered to pay 33 7s. : 'Gd,'for'., the''damage-, (lone,, in .default 14 i days'-imprisonment.,'' * . ■;r.JvSTEEET BLOWS.: ■ .:Wm. tLegg was conviotcd and fined 405., in default seven days' imprisonment, on a oharge of having assaulted ono John: Simpson. It was : stated,by the police that Simpson was walking along.. Lambton Quay, when accused deliberately "struck him and knocked him uncon- . /spious." Accused said 1 that he .was provoked by informant whilst drinking in a hotel.'. As a result ''. of' the: language, accused said .he lost his temper' and. " clouted '-'informant. -. : (;<>;•;' y>:■':") ':■■. other cases.- -; r : ■ 'J Elizabeth Allison Wood pleaded not guilty tp a'.oharge of being an idle and disorderly per-, son': with insufficient lawful means of'support. • 'After "hearing, the evidence of Sergeant Stewart and-Constable Cummings, his Worship entered a 'sentence of three months' imprisonment. . 'A ;.oharge.of importuning laid) against Ruby Kirk was : dismissed,: his Worship considering that : there, some doubt about .matter, and accused -must-have-, the benefitof it.. '...A middle-aged man; nained Robert Seeds, appeared in answer to a' oharge having assaulted one John M'Kinnori, /with intent to do him actual bodily 'harm..'Oh the application of. Station Sergeant"; Darby, : who stated' that the' man assaulted,.had .been taken to' .the hospital, a; remand to April '26; was. granted. .:' ":,Wni.: Tnylpr plended riot.guilty to a.charge that-he intended to leavo bis wife without making . n'dftjliate provision for, her maintenance. After; hearing a-lengthy, explanation; of family complications, .in: which it was urged:for the defence that defendant was:only, going for a. i'short-,: health-recruiting :' trip, . his Worship, ordered defendant'to, find security in the sum of •: 3150, ; "ah'd, one., surety of. 3150. in default throe 'months': imprisonment, •' Complainant was also/irnilcted in Mis. posts. Mr.r. Wv.Jnokspn .appeared for -., complainant, and Mr. Kirkqaldio tpi"-defendant;,' '-,:■" , " : ' :r :':(Beforo J)v. --A," M'Arthur,; S.M.) '■:};■ .: ;..Judgment»fqr plaintiff by default of defend-, p,nt .was'entered iu,the .following .case?:—• , .-Frederick'Clarke'v. Georg^Logan, 3?, costs lOsi j J. pnthie anil Co., Ltd., v. Alfred Lacey, J855 185..-;2d., -costs :-31 J63.'■; John W.; Easson and Percy G. Engson, trading as .J,,W, Easson' and-Co.,' 7.-Alfred. Lacey, "<JM4 6s. cosh 33;' Robert Martin', Ltd., vi Harry, W.-F,. M; Holbrbok, ; 33o;l6s.;,.costs. 32 ; 175.; ; E;- M. the King T. Albert, Peters ahd'Harry:Peters, trading 1 as'A. Peters and.'Son, 310 8s„ oosts £1 13s. Cd.j P.; R.vßussell and-,Co! v., W. G. Cairdj' .324.175.5d4 posts £ji 13s.'; Commercial A'gency,-' Ltd.,'assignee, and Veitch and Allan, assignor,v. Caroline, A. "Wallace, £1 10s; r costs Bs.; "The -Tiuies".;(Eondoh).,v..Morton and Turner, 315 45.-'dd.,: costs '31' 13s. Gd.; Sargood, Son/' and Ewen, Ltd., v v. William G. WaLker,. 32 ss. 6d., costs: 10s.'; Samuel ■: J. : Bireh v. Frank. Gomez, 34, "costs' ss. fWilliain H. .Nash'v. i Mark Dor--nan,;3ls'l6s. ld-i costs'. 31 10s. Bd,'; TJ.F.C.A. v.'lsabolla Simpson, 35'125.',1id., costs.3l 35.. 6d.; Smith andamith, Ltd., v. J. Thornton Wilson, 312. :18s.'. Sd.i,costs '31 -lOs.,- Gd.;-W. -Dimock!'ahd,Co., Jid., y.Dolph Cnnnath, 322. costs'-32'lis.;C..M.- Banks,. Ltd.; v.Sandland a'ndfCo., 1 33,-costs'-10s.: : ■;:■:: :--:^"-;,-

'H iX'f>:■; ; : : 1 :■'■ Th •-the ■ judgment. auitimons' case, /Geprga anil Kersley, Ltd.,. y.. Alfred John Oxenham, in .which ihe debt -'was''-'£l3 '10s. 5d..\ judgment debtor djd not appear, and was ordered to pay ■ the amount on, or/before May' <V in.default It days'imprisonment. ,'■."••■ ..:.:., ■■• .'.'.'Harry Criimj),' ivho-.did not .appear,, was .ordered'''to pay *td "Aridrew;A. ; Stuart' Menteath, a ■debt;'of;'<e2B'llsr.-"9(i.'roii orbefbre' Hay 6,' in', default • one month's -imprisonment. .;. . ; ." '-:.A" Similar 'order/. : was- made in respect ; to :\Valter ; B.':Giesen, ?whose debt ;to: William Mel-'-Huish amounted to JBB'ls, '.' : ':.' : h.'.,,:' :, .In- u the. .two following 'base's, the. debtors wefie' ordered'tp pay the amounts owing.on.or beforo MayG, .in' default .of 'seven days'- imprisonment:, Bouse and Hnrr'elli' 'Ltd.; v. Joseph •Andrews, 1 a'debt' : 'of 'M 0s.; ; 103.; ■ ;Ettie <:Mackay/v.;/Antonio Stuparich/, .a: debt- of M 165.. • No-.order 'was made ; 'in the; case,. John S. ■Matson> v. William Gardner,; a' debt of v£l lis. : ;i;-;;fc■ X\'' ; : CASES.; ; ' ,7 .' : i .'■: :-:.; : :;?"(Before;Drf A; #ArthW, S.M.); - \ / ' '£hi 'icONTRACTORS''LIENS ACT. /;'V. ■;.'• J. W. Eassojj and Company,. timber : merchants, "'■ Kilbirnie, claimed J873 75, : (Id. : from G..H. Bradley, Ulio Shannon, and Alfred lacey for the < supply and. .cartage- of timber .and joinery for:work- done ;by.'Lacey between October, 190S,'andlFebruary last. The claim'was made, under the . Wages'.. Protection and - Contractors' Liens. Act, ICOB. After heanng dei.faUs of the transaction,' his Worship gave judgment against ,'Lacey for JJ73 6d., and costs #7: 7s.r and 'allowed Bradloy costs £i. 125.. Mr.' Johnston-appeared for, plaintiffs, and Mr. Ifoldsworth for'; Bradley..: ;':--;■ ALIiEGEDjWRONGFUL SEIZURE. ' - ' 'A- Bpwen (Mr.' Kelly) claimed from J."W. Reado (Mr. Findlay), damages r for alleged seizure'.'of ;ti phonograph and •records. After; a; ; statement Of 'the : position between, the parties, his. Worship gavo judgment for defendant, with costs £i Bs.-. ■•■'

.:.. Yaundeyman and hotelkeepee. , ;. ■ Dr. .M'Arthur,' S.M., delivered reserved decision in the case.in.which W. Naismith and Co. (Mr. Dunn) proceeded against A. T. Almond (Jfr. Hindniarsli) for the recovery iof £78 lis. on-account of:work,done by/plaintiffs for defendant/The defendant counter-claimed for ..the sum of ,';iE2oo'as'-special damages for. the loss of custom as 1 proprietor of the Trecadeio Hotel, owing to the refusal of tho plaintiffs.to deliver to the;- defendant certain sheets, pieces/ and'other' household. materials' on "March :25 and 1 26 last, ! such/being all. the articles taken' by. the'plaintiffs.; from ;tho hotel to to .washed at' their laundryJ' ! \ ..';'; '■'•'.'■-■"':. - Tho disputp between parties, m'reference .to. the'claim .was,:.whether' tho prices were to bo .charged: at the rate of Is. or 9d. ; per dozen. It.appeared,"said.(lis'M'orshfp, that the general trade price',to■':hotels. and .restaurants .was Is. per : 'dozen, while tho' defendant asserted that there was some.arrangement whereby:his work, and; that- of the Commercial Hotel, was to be done at the: rate of Bd. per dozen, by reason of plaintiffs getting tho work of both. ..The plaintiffs said that'there was to be a discount, but itvwas to be on the understanding of prompt payment, and of getting all tho.work of. both establishments. '. They compio.med that they ?ot neither prompt payment nov all the work lis Worship • added that, considering ■ thr-<-, the standard ratp was Is., that there was no evidenco nf an agreement'at 9d., nnd that payment waf. in arrear for three months, ho was of opinion that the' plaintiffs were entitled to payment at the rate of. Is. . ; .. In jthev counter-claim, several points arose in reference.to the natnre of liens and. of conversion; .Assuming that the plaintiffs had t> lien, either general, or particular, on: the defendant's goods,'; and -that there had .been' conversion, it wniy in his; Worship's''opinion; sufficient to allege and prove, as special damape, a general loss of custom, without stating the names of the customers who had 1 ceased' to patronise'tho hotel. After goine fully into the Circumstances, his Worship said that he corfsidered that tho plaintiffs had no general lien on ■ tho goods, • put that thev had a particular lion: for thi amount, due for the work done on the goods ,in hand. The defendant,- how-, ever, never tendered tho money dijc for • fV« work, and. under tho circumstances, his tender could not be dispensed with., Tho Courr was also of opinion that there htid been nooonversion. Tho goods were returned on March 27, and the counter-claim was dated April 5. His Worship considered further.that very liU tie. if any, damaffc was suffered,' .".-■ Judgment was, therefore, given for plaintiffs on both the claim and the counter-claim. Costs .ffi 18s. were allowed on the claim, and ,£lO on tho counter-claim. ■' .■>'--■■'■■■..'■.:

; LANDLORD AND TENANT. :.'■ (Before Mr. TV. G. Eiddell, S.M.) Mrs. Ellen 'Stevens (Mr; Bolton) sued Mrs. 1 Camilla Leslie (Mr! Toogood) for £18 lis. 7d. Tho plaintiff stated that on November 5, IMS, she loosed a house at No. i Hay Sti'eet to the defendant for three years, on condition that tho

defendnnt should use the premises "in a fair and tenaniable manner, fair wear and tear alone excepted." On November 20, 1908, when the tenancy expired, tho plaintiff ascertained that tho defendant had not used the promises according to tho terms set out in the agreement, and the plaintiff thereupon notified the defendant that certain repairs should be carried out. The defendant neglected to effect tho .repairs 'within a given time, and the plaintiff carried out tlie repairs at a cost of 315 14s. 7d. The plaintiff claimed to recover this amount, together with 32 17s.' for rent during tho period the repairs were being effected, making a total of J3lß' lis.; 7d. Hearing of the case occupied part of the morning, nnd the whole- of tho afternoon, tho first witness for tho defence being in the box when tho Court rcso at 5 p.m. The case was adjpurned for further hearing until April 29.