Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Probates were granted as follows : lie Jessie E. G. May, deceased (Mr D. Stewart); Charles Roberts, deceased (MiBarclay) ; Lewis Shaw, deceased (Mr J. Macgregor); William Henry Alexander, deceased (Mr Kettle); George Turnbull, deceased (Mr Finch); James Murdoch, deceased (Mr Wood). Re John Barclay, deceased, Motion for letters of administration (Mr James). —Accordingly. Be Caspar Henriok Aui.krt, deceased. —Motion for remuneration to executors (Mr Sim). —Referred to Registrar for report.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(3efore Messrs J. J. Ross and T. C. De Lacy, J.P.s.)

Hugh Gourley v. Jane Hawkins.—Claim, L 8 19a 6d, on a judgment summons. Mr Mouat appeared for plaintiff.—Defendant was ordered to pay the amount by monthly instalments of 20s, in default seven days' imprisonment. J. Gillies v. W. Wilson.—Claim, L 8 14s Cd, on a judgment summons. Mr Thornton appeared for plaintiff; Mr Barclay for defendant.—Defendant was ordered to pay the amount by monthly instalments of 15s, in default six dayß' imprisonment. William Higginson v. Thomas Buskin.— Claim, L2 16s, for goods supplied. Mr Meatyard appeared for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given, with costs. R. Brew v. C. Peterson.—Claim, L 5 3s, on a judgment summons. Mr Mouat appeared for plaintiff; Mr Wilkinson for defendant.—By the consent of counsel the order previously made in this case was varied, the amount being now made payable by instalments of 5s per week. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs J. Logan and J. D. Feraud, Justices.) Drunkenness.—A first offender was convicted and discharged ; Jennie Knight (five previous convictions) was also let off, promising that she would not err again; and Eliza Harding (forty-eight previous convictions) was granted another chance to go into the Rescue Home. Unreoistered Dee. George ZT'Culre was fined Is without costs.

DarosiiiNG Rubbish. Thomas Jonex pleaded guilty to a chargo of depositing a cartload of rubbish on Burns street, near the railway station, and was fined 2a 6d and coats (12s). The Building Regulations. George Lawrence was charged with failing to remove a scaffolding within a reasonable time after hie license had expired.—lnspector Morrison said that defendant had a contract for improvements at the City Brewery. His license ran for twenty-one days from the Oth August, and the soaft'olding wai not removed nntil eight days afterwards.— Defendant said that the scaffolding was not his. His license was a license for depositing ■tuff on the street, notfora scaffolding. When spoken to about the scaffolding he told the inspector that it belonged to the plasterer. The fact of the matter was that the inspector had a grudge against him.—lnspector Morrison denied that he had a grudge against Mr Lawrence; and as to the information, the scaffolding was erected on the license held by defendant. The plastoror referred to took no notice w hen spoken to about the matter.—Sergeant-major Bevin ; If you will excuse me, I would point out that there is something ahout scaffolding in this license. It says " depositing material, scaffolding, etc., on the street line." —Defendant: Well, if so, I did not erect it. If you will grant an adjournment I will produce evidence that I had no stuff on the street at that time.—The Inspeotor: There is np one else, your VYorships, that I can look to excepting this man,—The Bench: Do you wish to withdraw the information ?—The Inspector: }f your Worships think I ought to do so I will do so willingly.—The Bench (to defendant): Do you want to bring witnesses ? Defendant: Do you think it necessary ? I think It have shown I am not the responsible party ? The Bench : Well, we can give an adjournment to look further into it and get the other men. When will an adjournment do till ?—Defendant: Well, I would rather not come here again to lose time.— The Bench : You would rather pay a fine 1 —Defendant: If I arn guilty. But I say lam not. It is not right that I should pay for another man's offence. If the inspector had summoned the other party ho would have had to pay.—The Inspector: No one seems responsible, and the Corporation are defrauded. Defendant: No one is defrauded in my case.—After a pause the Inspector said : I am willing to withdraw it in order to show that I have no bias against the man.—The Bench: Oh, pay no attention to that statement.—Mr Feiaud: You have only done your duty. —Case withdrawn.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890917.2.19

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8014, 17 September 1889

Word Count
733

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8014, 17 September 1889

Working