THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 16662, 19 February 1918, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE'S' COURT. (Before H. A. Young, Esq., S.M.)' Judgment for plaintiffs bv default in tho following cases:—William J. Keel (Mr Irwin) v. A. Stanley Dickson, of Invercargill, £5, for motor hire; G. J. Markby (Mr Finch) v. John Moir, of Pukerau, £1 10s, for a book.

Amy Elizabeth Ritchie (Mr Scurr) v. Henry Anthony John Barden Mr Irwin).— Claim, £9' 7s-, money alleged to have been lent in various sums from August 18, 1916, to April 25, 1917. Defendant, a returned soldier, alleged that the money plaintiff gave him was money that he had given to her to mind for him.—Plaintiff was nonsuited, and ordered to pay counsel's fee of one guinea* v -

Love Brothers (Mr W. ~L. Moore) v. W. S. Roberts (Mr Gallaway).—Claim, £5 14s, expenses. Mr Moore said that Dr Robert's was interested in a fruit istm at Bald Hill Flat, and wished to 'erect a building there. He heard that stone to be found thero might be used, and desired an expert opinion as to whether it was suitable. Hearing that Love Brothers were good contractors, he asked Mi- Love to inspect and report. Mr J. Y. Love went up to do so. He left Dunedin on a Friday, arrived at Bald Hill Flat on Saturday about lunch time, spent Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning looking at the stone and gravel, walked oack to Alexandra to catch the train on Monday morning. The defence, he (Mr Moore) understood, was that Lovo was going up in any event, and that tins was a friendly piece of work. As a fact, Love had no other busiress up there, but went up simply and solely to report. His report was to the effect that the gravel might do, but, taking all things into consideration, he had better build in wood. —Evidence was giveri by J. Y. Love, who said that ho made the inspection two years ago. The contract for the inspection was made by his brother, who was now at the front. It was on instructions from his brother, not from Dr Roberts, that he made the inspection.—Mr Gallaway said that as no contract had been made out he was entitled to ask for a nonsuit, hut'Dr Roberts' wished to give evidence.—Dr Roberts said in the courss of his evidence that ho had heard favorable accounts of Lovo Bros.' work, and asked them to discuss with him a proposal to build at Bald Hill Flat. They were told that no immediate steps would be taken to build, but that when witness sold his town house ho intended to erect a building for himself at Fruitlands, as the place was now called. The Mr Love who was at that meeting clearly and distinctly said that he was going to visit tho district, and- he said that he would, then look at the gravel and stone. He also said that he was interested in fruit, and witness said that his son would put his up and give him every information. Xo time was mentioned" for the visit. If witness had asked Lovo to go for his (witness's) benefit he would not have dreamt of repudiating tho charge. But it was Love's own offer to go Tip. He (witness) did not authorise Mm to go. The Mr Love who had ju?t given evidence must have been misinformed by his 'brother.— His Worship said that plaintiff had admitted that there was no intention to charge for the trip at the time. Any expense was to bo included in the price of the building. As the brother who made the arrangement was away, tho best course would bo to nonsuit the plaintiff,"and when the brother came back, if it were deemed desirable, the action could be brought again. _ Plaintiff would be nonsuited, with one guinea costs. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before H. A. Young, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness.—Charles King, on remand, was ordered to pay expenses (£2), and was, in addition, committed to Roto-Roa Inebriates' Home for 12 months.—Thomas Hector M'Caughan was charged with drunkenness, and also with behaving in an. offensive manner in a railway carriage between Dunedin and Burnside. He was fined 10s or 48 hours on the first charge, and £2 or seven days on tho second.

Remanded. Alfred M'Farlane was charged with being an incorrigible rogue in that he consorted with remiied thieves., and had been previously convicted as a rogue and vagabond.—Sub-inspector Mathieson said that accused and another man were before the Court on Saturday last, and remanded on a charge of being'rogues and vagabonds in that they were unlawfully found by night on premises. Since then information had come to the knowledge of tho detectives that justified them 111 preferring the present charge. He asked for a remand until Wednesday week.—Mr Scurr, for accused, asked for bail—The Sub-inspector objected to bail. The police were continuing their investigations, and it was not yet known what the result might be.—Mr Scurr said that accused was a returned soldier suffering from shell shock, wounds, and a paralysed arm He had been living with his mother, an old lady since he returned four months ago. He had been away for 2£ years.—Accused was remanded accordingly, and bail (which mL forthcomir >g) was allowed himself in hIQO and two sureties of £SO each.