MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 9773, 1 August 1895, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, Jiey 31.

(Before E. H. Oarcw, Esq., S.’M.)

O. Watson v. T*. Chapman (Christchurch). —Claim, £1 Is 2d, for goods supplied.— Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with 6s costa.

Park, Reynolds, and Co. v. Thomas Alphonso Good.—Claim, £1 lUs JJ, for goods supplied.—Judgment for amount claimed, with costs.

George Scbluter v. George MTJuirc.— Claim, £3 Is, on a judgment summons. Mr Mouat appeared for plaintiff, and subjected defendant to a severe examination as to his means, after which His Worship dismissed the case.

Smyth and Marshall v. William Johnston.—Claim, £1 13s, balance of account due.—Mr fSim for plaintiffs, for whom judgment was given, with 6s costs.

Annie M ‘ Leod v. John Davis.—Claim, £3, for assault. Mr Callaway appeared for defendant.-—There was no appearance of plaintiff, and costs were given against her to the amount of £2 4s Id.

Hooper v. Laverty.—ln this previoaslyheard case His Worship delivered judgment as follows : —One of the points of dispute in this case is whether it was the intention, when the order for the goods was accepted, that Mrs Laverty was to be looked to for payment—whether, in fact, the goods were to be sold to her. The evidence shows that Mr Laverty was bankrupt, and points to the business as being then carried on as Mrs Laverty’s business. The banking account was in her name, she drew cheques, gave bills, and made payments. The publican’s license continued in Mr Laverty’s name, but as a matter of law a married woman could not hold a license. Mr Carter's evidence that credit was given to Mrs Laverty is strongly corroborated by the fact that the goods were consigned to Mrs Laverty, and there seems to he no other explanation of this than that the goods were intended for her—not for Mr Laverty. As to the question whether there is proof of an acceptance of the goods so as to take the contract out of the statute of frauds, there is this; that the goods being consigned to Mrs Laverty no one would have a right to receive them but Mrs Laverty, and sbe never disputed that they were received. She was found in possession of a mirror, a portion of the consignment, which she offered to pay for, and Mr Hooper has sworn that she promised to pay for all the goods if she was given time. I think there is siiliicienL evidence of acceptance. As to the question whether it is now necessary in an action upon a contract with a married woman, entered into before the Married Woman's Property Act, 1891, came into force, to prove she bad separate property at the time tho contract was made, I have before this expressed an opinion to the contrary; but, as a question of fact, it seems to me where a married woman carries on a business that necessarily requires a quantity of furniture and other articles, together with a stock-in-trade which she is selling, she must be presumed to have separate property. Judgment for plaintiff for £2O 18s 2d, with costs of court (345), witness (10s), professional costs (52a). A. J. Cottrell v. J. Conuor.—Claim, £2, damages to a shed through a covered express coming into contact with wire rope unlawfully attached thereto, by defendant. Mr Webb appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Calvert for defendant.—Judgment for Is and costa (22a).;, ' - ' '

The mosaic work for the decoration of St. Paul’s Cathedral has been done by English artists, who competed with the Italians and surpassed them, with the result of proudng some of the finest mosaics in Europe. Eighteen alligators were recently seen on thebanka of Five-mile Creek, near Cardwell Meat Works, Queensland.