MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 825, 25 May 1910, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) LOOTING WORKERS' LUNCHES. Wharf labourers, who are in the liabit of taking -lunch to work, have been missing their midday meals frequently for some time past, this "being due to the activity of some person or persons who have apparently made a practice of ransaking the men's pockets. On Monday a middle-aged man, named Charles Hayes, was seen coming out of the men's quarters eating, and, as a result of inquiries made, lie appeared before the magistrate yesterday on a chargc of stealing a dinner valued at Is., the property of Charles Nordell. Accused pleaded guilty. Sub-Inspector Norwood said accused had given the name of Charles Hayes, but it had been found that his proper name was Michael Noonan. The subinspector asked for .a remand to enable some further inquiries to be mado regarding the man. Accused was accordingly lemanded until this morning for sentence. JUVENILE COURT. Two boys, aged 11 years and 9 years respectively, appeared before the Juvenile Court charged with stealing a watch, and other articles, tho property of Herbert G. .Richards. The older of the two boys was convicted, and committed to the AVereroa Training I'arm, and was, also, ordered to receivo five strokes of the birch. The younger lad was convicted and discharged, with a caution. ' DRUNKENNESS. One first offender for drunkenness was convicted and fined 55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment.

CIVIL BUSINESS.

(Before Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.jtf,) A FURTHER PIANO CASE. - 'FALKINISR AS A WITNESS. Further complications arising out of the dealings in pianos of E. J. Falkiner were detailed in the partially-heard John Hall Flockton (Mr. D. Jackson) v. Wm. Henry Wcbbe (Mr. Blair). Plaintiff is a dealei in Wellington, and defendant a musical instrument importer trading as "Tho London and Berlin Piano Co/' The original statement of claim set out that on ot about January 12 defendant wrongfully removed from tho promises of tho London Piano Co. ono Spencer piano, No. 51877, and ono Hosener piano, >.o. 3SS4, the property of plaintiff. On January 12 the plaintiff demanded from defendant the return of the two pianos, but defendant refund to deliver tho same. Plaintiff claimed possession of the two pianos, ov £50 in case possession could not l)e had, and t £s for detention. Plaintiff, however, subsequently abandoned his claim to tho Spcncer piano, thus reducing tho claim to ono for *C 27 10s. Plaintiff's evidence had been taken when the case was before tho Court previously, and adjourned because of the criminal charges which vero then pending against Falkiner in tho Supreme Court. Evidence was given by Falkiner that ho was employed by Wobbo to sell piancs on.commission, and ho detailed at length the position between himself and Webbe. Iho piano which had been seized was a second-hand one, sold to Flockton for c£lo and left in the shop, ns Mr. Flockton had no room for it at the time. To Mr. Blair: Tho numbers of tho piftnob did not agree, but he did not notice this until h& *imv his ledger in the Supremo Court.. The jnistako was made in the hurry of the moment. He did not account for tho piano to Webbe, ho hadnct had time. It was not a fictitious piano .*ale, In fivo years ho had only made one or two mistakes in regard to tho number of pianos. He had no right to sell tho piano to Flockton, and did not intend to do so. .Geo. Wm. Piatt, traveller, stated that lie was employed by Falkiner, and remembered tho sale of a, Rosener piano to ft clerk at Petone. This piano was returned some months later, and rcmainctl in the shop until witness loft. Mr. Blair stated that he did not propose to call any evidence. , He urged that tho onus lay with plaintiff to satisfy the Court that the particular piano in tho claim ivas sold to Flockton, and that the particular piano sold to Flockton was that which was seized by Webbc. Plaintiff had/ ho urged, failed to discharge that onus. , If the Court was satisfied, that tho piaiio in. question was sold or pledged .to Flockton, then certainly Flockton was entitled to keep it if lie took it bona fide. Plaintiff,' however, must show that ho did not know that Falkiner was acting fraudulently, and that Falkiner, in dealing with Flockton, was honMt. After hearing argument at considerable length, his Worship reserved decision until Tuesday next. PERIODICALS AND BOOKS. tPhe Gordon and Gotch Proprietary, Ltd. (Mr. Dunn), claimed .£62 15s. Id. iron. Edith Vaughnn (Mr. Dix) for periodicals, books, etc., supplied. Evidence was given for plaintiffs to tho effect that, in November, an account was opened in Mrs. Vaughan's name, on condition that her husband guaranteed the account. This was done, and the goods were supplied and charged up to Mrs. Vaughau, who lnet the first payment with her own cheque. At the same time an account was running in Mr. Vaughan's name,;but it was entirely separate. i For tho defence it was admitted that the goods were supplied to defendant's husband, but not to defendant herself. Defendant's husband was carrying on two businesses,. one as a stationer and the other as a printer. Ho took a partner in in one of the businesses, and it was for this reason that tho second account was opened. Although' the account had been put in Mrs. Vaughan's name, it was urged that she was not to bo personally responsible. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs for tho amount claimed and costs ,£6 3s. ■