MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 64, 17 March 1927, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Police cases in the Magistrate's Court to-day were dealt with by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. • Fighting in Jacob's Place cost Te Kahurahu Eru and Horace George Guppy, two labourers, aged 32 and 22, respectively, £1 each, in default ;three days' imprisonment. One first offender for drunkenness was fined 10s, the amount of his bail. PETONE SITTING. Jri"- J- H. Salmon, S.M., presided at £ ■••etone Magistrate's Court yesterday. lor fighting in a public place, II S James and J L. Stewart were each fined i-2, m default fourteen days' imprisonment. , '.."'... For negligent riding on a motor-cycle G Ushmore was fined £1, and for riding nis motor-cycle without a driver's license he was fined £2. For a similar offence A. ix. Orrabham was also fined £2 mIT J id T in 6, cyslea at night without lights J. Lmdley, H. Aird, and W. Thorns were each fined £1. For playing "two-up" on Gear Island, U. Clout, S. Hutton, S. Jones, G. Malcolm, and H. Turvey were each fined £2 *°r tatisoa licensed premises while prohibited W. H. Homes was fined £1 . lieavin^a car in a place, not a "park'»"^f <=°«t P- Heald, J. M. Pearson, and D. Logan 10s each R. Swaysland and E. T. Christie were charged with not protecting the footpath while cartmg over it, and were Irdered to pay the costs of the prosecution. .Judgment b? default with costs was given in the following civil cases:-H J Jones and Co. v. D. Lander, £2; J p Cotton and Co. v. J. Scott, £10 2s X H Nicholson v. A. Morgan, £7; F 8 MLean v. S. Jones, £6 0s; NZ SawTw? nf cw y S°^ td- v. J ScorinTe, r- r^ l d; P- Dicks v- S. Stafford, £2 ™ ; o -? Ir?; "U M- GoSB v- R- Gough, £16 10s 6^ V" G' M'Kie ™an, £41 For failing to grant the award holiday to paVTI °' H> Donovan was ortJe«d .Messrs. R. F. Jollands v. S. Tremain (Mr. HE. Evans) defended a claim maX by A- Lee (Mr. G. Findlay) for £49 alleged to be due as the balance of money M • T- ff ml lk r pplied on a r°™d «old by plamt.ff to There was a counter-claim of £48, the cost of employing a man formerly in the employ of Lee authoW t0 T 6 emPl° yed *em wful sihlp ftT "°m Lee> who would be reßPo»>---ma n I?L c-??,. ment- Jollands and Tremam had paid the man and had deducted the amount from money due to-Lee. There was no dispute in regard to the claim, but the point was whether Lee had agreed to paida the n£T ß entT^ hereby the man wa« T»« \if S; udemei»t was given for Lee on the claim and for Jollands and Tremam on the counter-claim