ELTHAM.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 23 July 1924, Page 10

ELTHAM.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT MONDAY'S SITTING. (Before Mr. A. M. Mowlem. S.AI.) PROCURING LIQUOR.. P. AleDougal was charged with procuring liquor for a prohibited persqn, Isaac- Miskelly. Defendant pleaded guilty. The magistrate said a man who procured drink for a prohibited person was worse than the man who drank it. Constable Townsend said he believed if defendant were- fined there was a cheque ready signed for payment. The magistrate said the law should be altered. He would fine Miskelly £2 with costs 7s, and Ale Donga 1 £5. with costs 7s. COUNTY BY-LAW CASES. The following defendants were fined as stated for breaches of the Eltham County by-laws: Henry Be restore! Kidd (Mr. Sheat) unlighted motor car, 10s (costs 7s); Charles Gordon Mather, no rear light on car, 10s (costs 7s) ; Stanley and Leonard Marshall, straying cattle, £1 (costs 17s 6d); Jolm Malone (Mr. A. A. Stewart) £1 (costs 7s); John Murray, failing to notify change of ownership of motor cycle, £1 (costs 7s). BOROUGH BY-LAW OASES. For breaches of the Eltham borough by-laws fines were imposed as follows: Ernest Harper (no rear light on motor car, 10s (costs 7s); C. Sorrensen, £1 (costs 7s); J. J. McCormack, unlighted bicycle, 10s (costs 7s) ; W. Patterson, jun., unlightod motor car, 10s (costs 11s) ; Chung Lee, unlighted bicycle, 10s (costs 7s). CIVIL CASES. In a. judgment summons case, Judd and Holder r. R. Glentworth, claim £4 11s Sd, the defendant said he had earned very little money for some months past, and was not in a position to pay. He was paying 5s a. week vent. He was out of work at present, and the last occupation he was employed at was a. <: dead house.” Could not say when lie would be able to find employment.—Under the circumstances the magistrate said he could majee no order.

In an undefended case, L. C. des Forges, v. John Murray, judgment was given for the amount claimed, £6 11s 7d, with costs £1 3s Gd. CLAIM FOR. INTEREST. Leuthard and Son v. Albert Schicker, claim £lO 10s. Mr. J. H. Sheat, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Lawrence'(Stratford) for defendant. The plaintifi, Airs. Leuthard, who gave evidence through a Swiss interpreter, said she had lent £2OO to Schicker. There had been no agreement. The evidence Avent to show that a man named Notter came into the transaction, and took over the liability. Plaintiff fully understood that she wa« to he paid 7 per cent. She had agreed to a man named Notter taking over the liability. * Ihe def endant, Albert Schicker, said he had a farm at Manaia, and had borrowed the £2OO from Airs. Leuthard and gave her a promissory note for same for a year. Airs. Leuthard agreed to Notter taking over the security. She first stated that, she did want interest, and then eventually that she would let it go. Cross-examined, witness said he had borrowed money off Notter before, hot had been charged interest. His Worship said the case was a very simple one. Defendant had admitted that he had at first presumed that the interest would be paid, and there was no valid reason whv interest should not be paid. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for the amount, claimed with c-ourt costs £5 ss. and interpreter’s fee, 10s.—Argus.