MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 561, 16 July 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before Mr. W.' G. Biddell, S.M.) A SERIOUS CHARGE. 1 1 A serious charge was preferred against a seaman named Alfred Binder, The information 1 set out that, on July 13, at Wellington, on the ss. Putiki, accused discharged a revolver loaded with'ball cartridge, at on; Bernard Bums, with intent to do him grievous -bodily harm. Mr. O'Leary, who appeared for acoused, asked for a remand. His Worship 10- • mnnded accused to July 19, bail being fi-ted at .£loo,,and one surety of .£IOO, or two of J!SO. , ' INSOBRIETY. ' A Hit of 58 previous convictions was tho load vihich burdened Timothy Donovan as he stepped into tho dock, charged with inso-' . bmty. His Worship ordered accused to the Paiatoa Inebriates' Institution for one year. One first offender for inAobriety was convicted and djscharjed, two were fined 55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment, and a fourth Has fined 10s., with a similar alternative. CIVIL BUSINESS. (Befor* Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M,) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgrhent for plaintiff by default of defendant was given in th» following undefended easts—R*j-inald John Wolsby v. Auguitin Bernard Corngan, .£1 10s. j costs 10s ; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. William M Easthope, *i 6 ifi?. cost 3 £1 ss. 6d.; Cycle and Motor

Supplies, Ltd, v William Hendry, £7 2d 7d. ( costs .61 3s Gd ; City Printing Co. v. Ernest Pnddlo, £1 10s, costs 5a In tho judgment summons coso of Barber and Co. v. John Polglaso, a debt of £G 15s 7d, no order was made DEFENDED CASES. CLAIM FOB COMMISSION. The ca9o in which Aubrey Houston sued Frederick Engclbcrt and Herbert Engelbcrt, trading as the Lux Light Co., for .£49 Is, for commission on sales alleged to have been effected on the defendants' behalf by tho plaintiff, was 'continued. Tho defendant-;' case was entered on, but was not concluded, and tho case Mas adjourned for further hearing until Saturday morning. Mr. Buddlo appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr. Bluu for the defendants. A HOUSE-BUILDING CASE. Another case which has been previously before tho Court was that of Alexander Bell and John 801 l v. G. H. Sample, a claim for .SIU7 10s. BdV, i on, a building contract. > Tho plaintiffs' case was completed, and Mr. Blair,' for tho defendant, moved: :for a nonsuit. Mr. Johnston, for the plaintiffs, replied, and his Worship adjourned the case until, July 17. i A SPECIAL PARTNERSHIP. His Worship, Dr. M'Arthur, delivered his reserved judgment in the case of John Milesi (Mr. Beero) and Joseph Ingle v. William Hurcomb (Mr. Hindmarsh). Tho, matter, .which had been .before the Court for a very long time, aroso out of a special partnership enteied into by tho parties, all of whom aro fishmongers, to buy the rabbits forming part of tho cargo of tho steamer Turakma, which caught fire whilo lying at the Queen's Wharf. The nibbits were to be prepared for tho local market, and all profits were to be equally divided, each partner to pay an equal share of tho disbursements. Differences arose, and tho matter was brought before tho Court, his Worship, Dr. M'Arthur, giving judgment for Milesi and Ingle against Hurcomb for .£47. The matter went to the Supreme Court, on appeal, which Mr. Justice Sim allowed, directing his Worship to rehear the case. It was on this rehearing that his Worship now delivered his decision. The plaintiffs claimed from the defendant the sum of £Bi 6s 2d, m respect of a verbal contract with reference to a special partnership concerning rabbits ' The matter bad been ordered by tho Supreme Court to be rehoard, on the ground that his Worship bad misdirected himself in reference to the evidence given concerning a statement made by tho defendant in loferenco to a deduction concerning benzine. Tho Supreme Court, however, held that bis Worship had jurisdiction m dealing with the partnership between the parties. His Worship wished it to be understood that ho was dealing with the case wholly on tho evidence given at the rehoaiing ,and totally ignored the evidence given in the previous case. His Worship then went into the partnership accounts at length, coming to the conclusion that Ingle owes tho partneiship account .£49 Bs. lid., and that Hurcombe owes it lis. lid., while the partnership account owes Milesi £St> 03 lOd. Ingle had not appeared in tho present action, so his Worship' gave judgment for tho plaintiff Milesi, against tho defendant, for £36 lis. lid., with costs £i 16s. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) A QUESTION OF DATES Two cases, John Daws v. Bertenshaw and Evensen, and Bertenihaw and Evensen v. John I Davies, were heard together. In the former case plaintiff stated that ho arranged with Bertenshaw and Evensen, who are auctioneers, of Wellington, to conduct a sale of electroplate at Palmerston North, on February 26 and 27. On February 26 the premises were not ready for the/Sale, and, on February 27, Mr. Bertenshaw was called away, and no other auctioneer could bo found Plaintiff, therefore, claimed .£l6 15s for expenses incurred m' connection with the proposed sale. In the second oaso Bertenshaw and' Evensen claimed .£l4 7s. from John Davies They stated that the arrangement was made for them to conduct the auction eale on February 25 and 26 On February 25 the premises wore' not ready for the salo, and, on February 26, no buyers came. Defendant undertook; to pay tho auctioneeis out-of-pocket expenses, and give them 10 per cent commission on the proceeds of tho sale. Therefore, they claimed ,£9 7s. expenses and a further ,£5 for goods sold by defendant on their behalf. Mr. O'Regan appeared for Davies and Mr. M'Grath for Bertenehaw and Evensen. Judgment was given for defendant in the first case, with costs '£1 Is, and for plaintiffs in tho second for .£lO 19s. 10d., with costs £1 18s. '

THE NEWTOWN LIBRARY CONTRACT. The contract for additions to the Newtown Library gave rise to an action a which Richard James Gnmmett sought to Teeover from Herbert Henry Knight the sum of £18'Js. id. for work done and material supplied. Defendant was contractor for the additions to the library, and he sublet the contract foi bricklaying and concrete work to plaintiff. Plaintiff had recently been involved in an action in the Supreme Court, im which ho claimed payment for' his sub-contract 'under a hen; but he contended that tho work for which payment was claimed in this caso was outside the contraot. After, evidence for plaintiff> had been heard, the caso was adjourned'until July 1 20. 5 Mr Dunn'appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. 0. Beero for defendant./ '