THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11891, 20 May 1903, Page 6

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., 8.1 L) Judgment by default, with costs, waf grven m the following caeca:—W. A. Scott v. Patrick Welsh (hoteDteeper, Riverton), clainv £lO Ob 6d, bin of bicycle and goods (Mr Moore for plaintiff)} Macdougalf and Uo. v. Sidney Raymond Merritt (manager Uinstchurch Meat Company), ol»im £4 6s 4d i,.^ aKe Bkittß rapp&d. /« i, *? m « and °°- »• J »«* Showman plied for alterations to Princess's Tneatri. Mr J. MacGregor for plaintiffs, Mr Chap. man for defendant -Mr MacGregor sail tiie case had been brought to test whether defendant was liable. The facts were these: Mr Showman was and is the propnetor of the Prmcees's Theatre, Dunedw. and in the year 1902 he entered mtoaa agreement to rail the property to Mr P R. Dix for the sum of £20,0C0, and further ' owing to the Agricultural Hall being fitted* up as a theatre, Mr Showman undertook to pay for certain improvements to the Princess's! The question subsequently arose as to whether Showman or Dix was responsible for payment of accounts in connection with these alterations. Plaintiff, up to sth February, had been paid by Mr E. 0. Reynolds,' who acted as attorney for Mi Showman, but on that date, on making application for payment of amount of claim, was informed by Mr Reynolds that he had no money to pay, and that the account should be rendered to Mr Dix. The timber *u«nlied was ordered by Mr R: Johnson, whom the plaintiffs understood was emgloved by Mr Reynolds as attorney for Mr fsnowman. When Johnson ordered the timber he simply stated that it was for the Princess s Theatre, and said nothing further. At the commencement of the alterations Mr Reynolds had informed Mr Leith, bookkeeper for plaintiffs, that Mr Johnson fw v « p , kc S. d in ° hM k? of the work, and that he (Mr Reynolds) liad given him full power to order timber where he liked and, &"teA it was of good quality. Mr P. Duval had already given evidence m the matter, and that evidence was virtually that he acted as generalexpert adviser to Messrs Dix, Showman/ and* the parties concerned. The whole difficulty had ansen through Mr Dix in the beguminjr of February throwing up his obligation to purchase and but for that fact Mr Showman would doubtless have paid the amount in the same way that other amounts had been paid. All wages and accounts in connection with the alterations were paid by Mr Reynolds on behalf of Mr Showma? and it was never .intended that Mr Dix should pay any of the amounts. Mr Duval „if° ™. fl, « rt J*«> Pledge Mr Showman's £i& £ d i *&»*** ««it Duval SJS todAeet) to make arrangebe would submit, had been encaged bv d*SS a T tt 2 mey ' "¥ ** »»eo? y h;d employed Johnson who ordered the timber. Plaintiffs had never looked to anyone to pay them other than Mr Reynolds, m attorney for the proprietor (Mr Showman). Mr ste ™ regard - t0 ~ m »P°ndencewith. Mr bowman was given by Mr E. C Revtot"* 0 **?* ™* wheß Pl«i°ti±fs came ~JT J hj \ referred them to Mr Johnson! who had charge of the works, but he dM had he (Mr had placed Mr Johnson in charge. He did not instruct Mr Hislop to act/Sd mere J recommended Mr Duval, as M? dA3 to consul with Mr Hislop._Mr C LeHh' salesman to M'Callum an/Co., satf he had received two separate cheques signed 5 Messrs Reynolds and Showman in Kyment ness that Mr Johnson had absolute authod? Wlttt v he wWwL-Mr Chapman pointed out that the accounts were made out "Princess's Theatre," and that S C nU hj ? WCdt ¥ t i laiDt J ffß ß aTe tolhe proprietary of tU theatre, whoever that T VT^!?^ ht •»• evidence STI" he *»• . tho 'eprosentativrof H \u "eogn'sed as the owner of the theatre The agreement between Showman and Dix in regard to the alterations was a private financial arrangement between the £5,000 necessary for the alterations. As to the engagement of the architect, all Mr ReynoldsTiad done was to mention the nameof Mr Hislop. Mr Duval, on behalf of Mr Dix, had engaged Mr Hislop, Johnson was employed by Mr Hislop, and Johnson had ordered the timber.—Robert Johnson, builder, stated that he was employed ly Mr Hislop, who gave him instructions, but he also took instructions from Mr Duval Acting under instructions from the latter! he had ordered the Roods sued for from M'Callum and Co. His instructions from bis employer were that all accounts were to be charged to Mr Dix.—James Hislop, architect. Btated that he prepared plans for alterations to the Princess's Theatre, and that instructions for their preparation were given by Messrs Dix and Duval, and Mr Reynolds was consulted as to the Btyle of the alterations. Any contracts entered into were in the name of Mr Dix. Witness saw Showman on the works after they had been commenced. When he sent in h's commission account he charged it to Messrs Reynolds and Dix.—This being all the evidence, decision was reserved. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before C. C. Graham, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness and Indecency.—A first offender pleaded guilty to committing the above offences last night in Vogel Btreet, near His Majesty's Theatre.—lnspector Green stated that there had been numerous complaints of similar offences of late in the locality, and he understood that the Corporation were taking steps to provide conveniences in the vicinity.—The accused was fined 68 for the first offence, and 20s and costs for the second. Prohibition Orders.—His Worship granted prohibition orders against Jam«s Arthursor, (on his wife's application) and Ernest Angus M'Opll. Wife Desertion. Allan Talbot was charged with desertion by his wife, Mary Talbot. Defendant (for whom Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared) pleaded not guilty, and was bound over in his own recognisance in a sum of £SO. Indecent Language.—Norah M'Sweeney and_ Mary M'Sweeney were charged with having used indecent language in a public place. Mr M'Gregor appeared to prosecute and Mr Macdonald for accused, who pleaded not guilty.—After hearing evidence His Worship fined each accused 40s and *" costs r amounting to 15s 6d. PORT CHALMERS POLICE COURT. (Before Mr D. A. De Maus and Captain C Hodge, J.P.s.) Drunkenness.—A first offender was convicted and discharged. Stowaways.—Alexander Dean and Thomas Reynolds, charged with secreting themselves on board the Waimate, pleaded truilty.—Mr Davis, the chief officer, stated that the Waimate left London at 1 p.m. on April 2, and on the following day, when the vessel was well down the Channel, he saw both the accused on deck, and spoke to them, when they replied that they had stowed themselves away. They had no money, and wanted to get out to the colonies. They had done no work on board. The Waimate arrived at Port Chalmers on Monday last. The steerage passage money was £2O each. —In answer to the Bench both.of the accused stated that they were laborers. —Their Worships inflicted a fine of £3 each, in default fourteen days' imprisonment.