THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Volume 12869, Issue 12869, 19 July 1906, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. Y./Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) , Judgment was given for plaintiffs b$ default in the" following cases :—Jfhoetiui Company, Ltd. (Mr W. C. MacGregor) vi W. E. Hogg and another (Wanganui) for £1 10s (costs and solicitor's fee); same v. Harry Jackson (Palmerston North) iot £7 Is 7d (goods supplied) -, with £2 15s costs. • - •" In the judgment summons case T. Young and Co. (Messrs Irwin and Irwin) v. William Shipton, a claim for £2 Bs, an order was made for payment forthwith, with 5s expenses, in default seven days' imprisonment. Aridrew Lees (Mr L. T. Burnard) v. John Thomas Hill.—Claim, £7 Bs, on a judgment summons.—Defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with £1 8s expenses, in default fourteen days' imprisonment in Invercargill Gaol. John M'Donald (Mr C. E. Statham) v. Gaorge Manning.—Claim, £2 10s, on a judgment summons.—Order made for immediate payment, with 5s costs, in default seven days' imprisonment. John Garland v. Gustaf Robert Harrison.—Claim for recovery of thirty-five volumes and a bookcase or their' value, £43 Is. Mr A. R. Barclay for plaintiff and Mr B. S. Irwin for defendant.—The main defence was that of bankruptcy, which plaintiff's counsel contended was not tenable. A document embodying the terms upon which defendant obtained possession of the goods was produced in evidence, and the question arose whether this document was an agreement, and therefore required stamping, or whether it was merely an offer, and therefore exempt. There was no hiring or bailment of the books, and plaintiff's counsel contended that the books were merely handed over to defendant subject to the condition of their becoming his property when a certain number of monetary instalments bad been paid. Ho also contended that the books did not come within the order and disposition clause of the Bankruptcy Act. In support of his argument he quoted authorities.—His Worship reserved judgment. (Left sitting.) CITY POLICE COURT. (Before C. C. Graham, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness.—A first offender was fined OS, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. T]heft. —Charles Price wasf charged with having stolen five dozen bottles, valued at ss, the property of Thomas Laurenson.—Accused, who was represented by Mr B. S. Irwin, pleaded guilty.—Chief-detective Herberfc explained that this man had been several times before the Court, though he had not been prosecuted on any charge since 1904.—Mr Irwin raid that most of accused's delinquencies had been committed while under the influence of drink, and he submitted that under the circumstances a fine would meet the case.—His Worship recommended accused to take a prohibition order out against himself, and fined-him 40s, in default one month's imprisonment. The Right to Blast—Allan Johnston was charged with having conducted blasting operations near a public road, to wit, Main road, Leith Valley. Mr Burnard appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr Hay for defendant.—Mr Burnard said the information was laid under section 3, subsection 27, of the Police Offences Act, 1884. The quarry where blasting had been carried on by defendant was situated on Leith road. Defendant had had permission to conduct blasting operations up to the Bth of July. Just two days prior to that- date the borough clerk wrote to Mr Johnston referring to the conditions under which this work was to be carried on, and informing him that his right expired on the Bth. No notice whatever was taken of the communication, and no reply made. The operations complained of were dangerous to the public, and property in the vicinity was also endangered unless the operations were properly carried out. One of the- conditions in connection with defendant's contract was that two men should be stationed on the road to give proper warning to-the public. Owing to a general neglect of conditions tho Council had been compelled to the • present action.—The evidence of the Maori Hill Council's was to the effect that the Council had granted permission to blast for one month from June 8, and on July 6 had written to rhe defendant informing him tLat permission for the future had been granted subject to certain conditions.—Mr Hay sub mittied that the effect of the town clerks letter to defendant was that permission was granted, even supposing the conditions had not been complied with. Failure to comply with the conditions would be another offence He submitted that on this ground the in-fr-rmation must be dismissed.—The information was dismissed, without costs. A second information, charging defendant with blasting rock within the Borough of Maori Hill without the permission of the Council, was dismissed, without costs, on similar grounds.