MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17697, 25 January 1918, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CHRISTCHURCH. Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., presided at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. An elderly man, Malcolm M’Kinl'ey, charged with drunkenness and also with a broach of a prohibition order, admitted the but denied the latter charge, declaring that tho order had expired on January 14. Senior-Sergeant Wohhnann produced documentary evidence proving that the order did not expire until January 26. M’Kinley was fined 5s for drunkenness and 10s for tire other offence, time to pay being refused.

In the adjourned case of the Sumner Bowling Club (Mr Mosley) v. D. Stevens, being a claim for £2 12s 6d, membership subscription, flie plaintiffs were nonsuited. Defendant was refused costs.

Judgment for the plaintiffs by default with costs was given in the following cases: —International Harvester Company (Mr Wright) v. Tiaki Rewiri, £166 9s lOd: William Abram Blackmore v. G. J. Mitchell, £l3 16s lid; Moller and Young, Ltd. (Mr Thomas), v. J. A. M’Rinnon, costs only; H. Matson and Co. (Mr Thomas) v. W. IT. Trengrove, £l9O 6s sdf David William M’Gill (Mr Hunt) v. Eileen Johnson, £6 4s 6d; Booth, Macdonald and Co.. Ltd., v. Frederick H. Gardiner, £6 3s dd; same v. H. Cuffe, £ls Is 6d; same v. James May, £lO 4s sd; F. D. Kesteven (Mr Thomas) v. H. G. Ell, £33; J. Ballantyno and Co. (Mr Hunter) v. James and Mrs M. Newton, £3 0s 3d against each defendant.

Reserved judgment was delivered in the claim brought by Josiali Carpenter against tho Public Trustee, W. T. Bunt, A. K. England and C. S. M’Cullv (Mr Ward) for £2O 9s for work done to certain Wookton properties. After reviewing the evidence the Magistrate gave judgment for, the plaintiff against all the defendants except the Public Trustee, who was allowed costs. Leave to appeal was granted. The Dominion Home Builders, Ltd. (Mr Hunter), proceeded against Annie Blakie (Mr M’Dougall), claiming £ll3, being agents’ commission in connection with the exchange of defendant’s farm at West Eyreton for one in South Canterbury. Defendant counter-claimed for £2OO as damages sustained through the plaintiff’s failure to sow 35 acres in wheat on the South Canterbury farm, which, sho alleged, was part of tlie agreement made between them. After hearing evidence tho Magistrate reserved his decision in both eases.