MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 303, 27 November 1912, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

HASTINGS. (Before Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) THIS DAY. ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Reserved decision was given in the case in which Mary Kathleen Doran was charged with on or about the ■)th of October concealing the Li.th of her 1.. ~ ly-Lc..; i..i gitnmi.e child.

In the course of his judgment, 11.0 Magistrate said it was a reasonable inference that the placing of the oody of the child under the bed was with the intpit of concealing its existence from any person coming into die room. The question whether when accused placed the body under the bed she ultimately intended to place it in same place of final concealment was a question for a jury. Che fact that accused did finally disclose the body to Mesdame.i Flynn ami Kyle and Dr .Nairn did not negative a concealment. It was not essential that the dead body .■ihould be put in some place intended for its final disposition, or be buried or destroyed. With regard o the point whether the accused’s intention was merely to conceal the birth from her two sisters and Mrs. Flynn, or from the world genet ally, that was a question for the jury to leeide after considering all the facts. Assuming that it must be proved that, the intent must apply generally, and not specifically, all hat'the Magistrate had to concern himself about was whether there vas a reasonable body of evidence suggesting a concealment. Hi« opinion was, where a person was ■hargeil before a magistrate under section 194 of the Crimes Yet, 19(18. with concealing the birth of a newlyborn dead child, and there was -<>nie evidence of unusual disposiion of the body reasonably suggest'ng concealment, the question of the -ufficiency of such evidence should be left to the jury and there should be a committal. Accused reserved her defence, and vas committed for trial at the next fittings of the Supreme Court to be held at Napier on March 10. 1913. She was admitted to bail in her own ■eeognisances of £5O. AN AGENT'S COMMISSION. E. R, B. Daniel, land and commission agent, sued A. Leipst for £3 .8,-, alleged to be due as commission .or the letting of a house. Mr. D. 3. Kent appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Scanned for defendant, Plaintiff's case was that in July, ,911,, he obtained a tenant for 1 house owned by the defendant. The tenant insisted on having a two .■eats’ lease, and plaintiff interviewid Leipst, who agreed and authoris'd him to instruct his (Leipst’s) lolieitors to draw up a lease. In his evidence plaintiff said the aouse was kept as a boardinghouse, md the business was in his hands or sale as a going concern. He 'ound a purchaser and defendant agreed to pay his commission later ,n. He had no written authority ’roni Leipst to let the house, but it .vas the custom for land agents to ibtain tenants without the written tufhoriy of the owners. For tlie defence, Mr. Seanncll sa:d hat. plaintiff was not agent, for Leipst, but agent for Mrs. Mackay md Miss Moroney, who carried on : he boardinghouse, and instructed ’iim to sell their business. ,

Dlr. ‘Kent, contended that there, ,vas implied authority. ; In giving his decision, the Magis-: rate said that before defendant, ■o;i!(. lie held liable for the ennimrs- J -ion. it had to be proved that he lad appointed plaintiff agent for the etting of the house. AU such cases lepended on that point. He had to lecide whether plaintiff was the : inthorised agent. He was not, ard vas not entitled to eontmiss.on. In ■ases where it was eontendtd there, tad been implied authority, the cir-J ■umstances must suggest the infer-1 cnee that a contract had been macle, j If the circumstances did not sag test such inference, then'there was| io implied authority. i Plaintiff was non-suited with costs) CIVIL CASES. ; Judgment was given for plaintiffs, n the following undefended civil) •ases: —James Brown v. Maurice: fostillo 15 -, costs 5-; Matthew fohnson v. Mrs. C. E. Jones £S3 12--., costs 23 -; Graham and Gebb'.e v.. William Rose. jun. £2 13 6, costs) 28 -; same v. J. M. Ross £1 15.6. i ;osts 5-; same v. Mrs. Moananu. >, Hone £lO3 17 6. costs £.5 9 9; same: v. James Wilson 6 cost* 5- ; same) v. Henry Oppcrt Bcosts 5 - : Mat-, thew Johnson v. Tana Hatipi £>• •osts 2S 6.