MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 272, 11 August 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

POLICE, CIVIL AND BY-LAW CASES Mr. J. S. Evans, 8.M., dealt with the police cases at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. ' A woman named Annie W. Duffy pleaded guilty to the theft of a pair of lady'B shoes, value 325. fid., the property of fi. Hannah and Co. Sub-Inspector limerson stated that on Saturday, last the accused went to Hannah's shop in Cuba Street for the purpose of purchasing a ( pair of child's shoes. The purchase was made, and wlien leaving the shop she was seen to take a pair of lady's tan shoes. The theft was witnessed by two customers, who informed an assistant of the fact. On Monday morning the accused went to Hannah's shop on Laanbton Quay and wanted to change the stolen shoes because they were too small. Unfortunately for the accused, the assistant who was iu the Cuba Street shop on Saturday happened to be in the Lambton Quay shop when she came in and immediately recognised licr, also the shoes, and a constable was sent for. When questioned, the accused admitted the theft It was explained on her behalf that she was a marri-ed woman living auart from her huiband. and had one child. She wa3 convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon within a period of six mouths. For committing a grossly indecent act in Molesworth Street, Walter Staples was fined '10s., with the alternative of 24 hours imprisonment. T ' For drunkenness, Mary Johnston wah fined 206., and Bernard Jluran 10s. civFcases '.

Mr. V. G. Biddell, S.M., dealt with the civil business, and gave judgment lor plaintifl in the following casesA. tt. Hamerton v. Tom Grur, £6 Is., costs ±.1 os. 6d.: H. Leitch v.. il. J. Hautana, Is.,' costs £1 12s. 6d.; D. Milligan v. 0. H. Dudley, £12. 125., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Viceroy Tea Co. v. G. Farquhar, £a 3s. (id., costs £1 3s. 6d.; Magnus, Sanderson and Co., Ltd., v. Arnold Hare, £13 Os. 6d„ costs £1 10s. bd.; Clement Walker v. John idwards, £1 155., costs 55.; British Imperial Oil Co., Ltd., v. N. E. Page, £13 16s. 9d„ costs £1 10s. 6d.; La-ing and Co., Ltd., v. Yee Dun, costs 125.; Ilurch and Co., Ltd., v. Wong Young, £9 173. id., costs £1 3s. 6d.: W. G. Goss v. G. llinchin, £2 8s„ costs 10s,; C. Hod v. L. Gestro, £1 17s. 4d„ costs Bs. On judgment summonses, A. 'L. Jt'Dult was' ordered to pay Jackson and Co. £14 10s. Sd. by August 31, in default 10 days' imprisonment. A. Bradley to pay the N.Z. Automatic Bakeries £8 lis. lOd. by August 24, or to be imprisoned lor seven, days. ; Daniel Driscoll, Daniel Bryan, and William Gill, members of the crew of the s.s. Wangaratta, wcro convicted of being absent from the vessel without letive. They were sentenced to 24 hours' imprisonment and ordered to be placed on board prior to the sailing of the vessel to-day.

BY-LAW CASES Mr. J. S. Evans, S.M., dealt with the by-law cases. ... For exceeding the speed linyfc in his motor-car along Lambton Quay, Frank L. Bush was fined. £3, and costs 7s. Leonard Doogood was charged that on July 23 ha masqueraded as Charlie Chaplin in the vestibule of the Britannia Theatre thereby causing people to congregate bo m to impede the traffic in Manners Street. He was fined 40s. and 7s. costsi For having insufficient lights on their, motor vehicles Horace Jury was fined 10s. and 7s. costs; Arthur S. Trengrove, Vs. costs only; Frederick 1). Wright, 10b. and ,7s. costs. Anastasia Kennedy was fined £3 and 7s. costs for exceeding the speed limit in Lambton Quay. Owing to extenuating circumstanc£B, Henry Hansen was ordered to pay 7s. costs only Jar allowing stock to wander. Michaal Kearney (for whom Mr. L. Edwards appeared) was charged with failing to drive his taxi-car as nearly as practicable to the left sido when turning l'rom Ghuznee Street into Cuba Street. After hearing the evidenco,/ the Magistrate said that .in the first, place he did not know what the by-law meant, for it manifestly meant a different thing to what it was Intended to mean." There was all-round contradiction so far as the evidence went, and, taking ifll the circumstances into consideration, he ' thought he would be justified in dismissing the information. Ho was not deciding tho case under the bylaws.