THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 9502, 26 September 1894, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before E. H. Car.ew, Esq., S.M )

Bing, Harris, and Co. v. Ernest' William Rohson (Palmerston).—Claim, £72 6s 7d, goods supplied.. Mrllodgkins for plaintiffs, for whom judgment was given by default. Sarah Jane M'Gill (Invercargill) v. John Duncan (Burnside).—Claim, £2 Id's, balance of rent due. Air James for plaintiff.—Judgment by default. D.I.C. v. William Pearce (Cromwell).—Claim, £2 2s 3d, goods supplied. Mr James for plaintiff. —Judgment by default. Equitable Insurance Association v. Reynolds Driver.—Claim, £8 Is Gd, on a cheque. Judgment by default. Sievwright and James v. Henry Davies O'Callaghan (Wellington).—Claim, £5. In this pre-viously-heard case His Worship delivered judgment as follows:—This is a claim for law costs. The defendant and his wife are living apart under a separation deed, in which the defendant agrees to pay his wife alimony. The evidence shows tLat the wife has also separate estate, and that the plaintiffs have acted for her in collecting the alimony. No Jegal proceedings have been taken to compel payment, but the claim is made up of costs in pi easing for payment on two or three occasions when the alimony fell into arrears, and for receiving and remitting the money to Mrs O'Callaghan when it came to hand. None of the cases relied upon go to support a claim of this nature, and separation by mutual consent and the provisions of the deed rebut any presumption, i/ otherwise there would be any, of agency on the wife's part .to pledge her husband's credit. judgment for defendant, with costs (£2 8.-=). Charles F. Travers v. Robett Guthrie.—Claim for the return of 5s deposit on the hiring of a cottage.—Judgment for plaintiff, with 6s costs'. Dutkic Bros. v. William Gawne,—Claim, £2. for goods supplied. Mr Fraser for plaintiff, ana Mr Calvert for defendant. The defence was that Ike goods were obtained by his daughter in excess of defendant's authority to supply.—After several witnesses fc&d been examined the Court adjourned the case for a wei&k ii< order that another witness might lie called. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs A. Nichol and H. M. Henderson, J.P.s.) Drunkenness.—A first offender was convicted and discharged ; Mary Carroll was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Damaging: Property. —MaryCarroll,oaa. further charge of breaking a pane of glass (value 9s), the property of James Morkane, was fined Is, and ordered to pay for the damage done, in default a week's imprisonment. Larceny.— Charles Olsen, a sailor on the Sarah Ridgway, was charged with the larceny, on or about the 23rd September, of two fowls (value 6s), the property of George Hamilton; of Maclaggan street. Dunedin.—Evidence was given by George Hamilton and Constable Scully, after which the accused protested his innocence. The Bench inflicted a fine of 395, in default fourteen days' imprisonment,—The line was paid. Alwwimo a Nuisance to Exist.— John Ellin was charged with suffering a dead horse to remain unburied in a section at Lookout Point, adjacent to a public road, so as to become a nuisance. Mr Sim for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.—Sergeant O'Neill said that in the paddock referred to there were ten dead horses, partially buried.— Evidence was given by Constable O'Sullivan and J. S. Kennedy.—Mr Sim held that the defendant could not be convicted, as it had not been shown that he was aware that the horses were unburied and that a nuisance was being created. He submitted that the Bench should dismiss the case without calling on the defendant.—After consideration, the Bench s?<id the defendant would be fined 10s.

—Mr Sim said he had proposed to call evidence on behalf of the defendant. It was usual to hear a defendant before he was condemned.—The Bench making no reply, Mr Sim said: Of course, if your Worships decline to hoar me .Mr Nichol: I am quite decided in the matter.—Mr Sim: And do your Worships decline to hear me ? Do you decline to hear any evidence?—Mr Nichol: Ido not want to hear any more evidence in the case.— Mr Sim : And you decline to hear any evidence ? Mr Henderson tWe are quite satisfied.—No more was said, but as Mr Sim was leaving the Court he said the matter might have to go to the Supreme Court, and if so their Worships might have to pay costs.—Mr Henderson : Very good. Prohibition Order.—A prohibition order was issued against Thomas Nathaniel King, to apply to the City of Dunedin, Chalmers, Taieri, and Caversham licensing districts.