MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 61, 9 September 1921, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., presided at today's sitting of the Magistrate's' Court. One' first-offending inebriate was dealt with leniently. Harry M'Neill, with a previous conviction against him, was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours in gaol. John Reid, who was making his third appearance for drunkenness, was fined £1, in default three days in gaol. ' ' ' Bernard F. Appleyard, who had pleaded guilty previously to charges of theft, earns up for sentence, He was admitted to probation for a period of two years. A fine of £5 and costs was imposed on Mary Hall, who pleaded guilty to a charge of assisting, counselling, and procuring Honora Whelan, licensee of the Alhambra Hotel, to commit tho offence of omployi'ng an unregistered barmaid. | James Malcolm, who failed to appear to answer a charge of trespassing on. the Trentham racecourse, was fined £10, in default one month in gaol. Defaulters from drill were dealt with as follow:—H. G. Guppy, L. Gfondin, S. Lawton, each 10s,and 7s costs; J. H. Toms, 40s and costs; V. Hiclding, convicted and discharged. Tho case against Bert Harris, who was charged, on the information of Henry James Cartwright, with assault at Athletio Park on tha day of the • Springboks-Wel-lington match, was dismissed. - OltlL CASES. The hearing of evidence regarding the olaim made by Ernest Hadley. builder, for a sum of £18 2s 6d from William Wilson, timber merchant, in reepect of work done in' the breaking-up, of a hulk in Evans Bay, was continued by Mr. E. Page, S.M., yesterday afternoon. Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, maintained that he had not received full pay for the work done, and that a sum of £11 was due to him on account of labour he had engaged for tho defendant, as also wore smaller sums expended in other ways. The defendant, for whom Mr. C. A. h. Treadwell appeared, held that full recompense had been made. The Magistrate said that it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had dons some work in addition to that referred to by the defendant, and therefore gave judgment for plaintiff for £5 and costs. ' A dispute over goods forwarded by the firm of C. B. lempriere and Co. to Mra. A. M. Neely. storekeeper; of WoodviUe, was referred to Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. Plaintiffs, for whom Mr. G. Watson appeared,- heta1 ■ that' the goods bad been ordered, in the ordinary manner from the firm's traveller,, but when they were forwarded to Woodville the defendant refused to take delivery.. Plaintiffs therefore claimed the sum of £22 12s lid. The do- | fpnee was that the goods sent wore not in accordance with the order. Counsel for the defence also raised'a law point on the question of delivery of tho goods, and the Magistrate decided to consider the contention and the authorities cited before giving his decision. A similar defence was raised on behalf of P. Curtis, hotolkeeper, of Christchurch, -in respect of a' claim made by the samo plaintiff for' "lasses supplied, valued at £13 19,s Bd. Judgment was also reserved in this case.