MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 1589, 15 June 1920, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE PROSECUTIONS.

(Before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M.)

For riding their bicycles on the footpath. Allen Fleming and Arthur Broad were each fined 5/, and 2/ costs. John Peterana, who failed to notify change of ownership of a motor-cycle, was lined 10/, and costs -/. For a similar .offence, W. W. McKinnon was fined a like amount. W. M. Petersen had to pay £l, and costs 2/, for leaving a car standing without headlights burning. Herbert Stanbridge, who had no front number on his car, was lined £l, and costs 7/. Hector Gemmell was convicted and lined £2, and costs 19/, for having negligently driven a motor-car. Roy Bennett was charged with negligently riding a motor-cycle. It was pointed out by the police that as a result of defendant's action, an accident had occurred. He was fined £5, and costs It)/. Bert Ellmers had to pay £l, and costs 7/. for having the front registration of his vehicle not easily distinguishable. For failing to notify change of ownership of motor-cycle, W. J Paris was fined 10/, and costs 7/. Barbara Loughnan was fined £l,. and costs "/. on each of two charges of having no lights on her car. Henry Smith had also to pay £l, and 7/ costs, for failing to have lights on his vehicle. DANGEROUS RIDING. W. E. Cooksley was charged with riding a bicycle in a dangerous manner, and with leaving a cart unattended and unchained. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the first charge and guilty to the second. Evidence was called to the effect that defendant had caused an accident when crossing the intersection of Rangitikei and Cuba streets. He was travelling, it was stated, at about fifteen miles an hour. He was convicted and fined £2, and costs 13/, and witness* expenses on that charge, and 10/ and 7/ costs on the latter charge. TAKING A BICYCLE. George Vogt was charged that ' during the month of March, he had converted to his own use a bicycle. Defendant pleaded guilty to having taken the bicycle, but stated he had no intention of, keeping it. He also stated that his own bicycle had been taken, apparently by mistake, and the machine in question was held temporarily by him with the hope that the owner would turn up. " There is too much of this borrowing of other people's bicycles," remarked his Worship, as he convicted and fined defendant £2 and costs 13/. IvIAINTENANCE CASES.

Gertrude McEwen (Mr Jacobs) proceeded against Andrew McEwen (Mr Fletcher) tor a separation, maintenance and guardianship order. Petitioner alleged ill-treatment, vile language, and excessive drinking habits against her husband, and said her married life —now a period of eleven years—had been most unhappy. Defendant denied the allegations. His Worship made an order in petitioner's favour for separation, maintenance, and guardianship of her children. The amount of maintenance was fixed at £1 for the wife, and 10/ for each of the children. In the case, Mrs C. C. Cook (Mr Ongley) v. D. J. Cook, application for a maintenance order in respect to petitioner's children, defendant agreed to pay £1 a week. He was ordered to pay £5 off the arrears of a previous order. COSTUMIER'S ACCOUNT.

Judgment lias been delivered in the recent civil action, in which Madame de Luen (Mr Jacobs) claimed from Mrs E. Haggitt £4 3 2/, the amount incurred by defendant for the making ot: a costume, frock, etc. At the hearing Mr Ongley appeared for defendant, who alleged that the clothes had not been made to her satisfaction. Mr Ongley raised a non-suit point that there was no contract in writing. His Worship, in his judgment, said the only question that remained was whether there was an acceptance of the goods. The only evidence in this respect was to the effect that they were delivered and sent back immediately'. In his opinion there was no act of acceptance. The plaintiff v/lis therefore non-suited with costs. The judgment provides a very important point, as apparently tailoring a:-d dressmaking establishments will, i- the event of acceptance of goods being refused, have very little legal hold so far as recovery of amounts over £lO is concerned, unless customers give written instructions when t":;e orders are placed.