LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6254, 2 December 1881, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Tucks l>ay. [Dcfore J. K. Macdonald, Esq., K.M.,] The weekly sitting to hear ami determine small debt claims, and the following business disposed of : — UsutFtSDED Case.®.—Frank Williams v. Dauiel Moverley, £4 4s ; Charles I. Eller v. W. Wilson, £10 7s 6d (rates) ; Thomas Slater v. James Clarkson, £10 Us Cd; Henry Canham v. Donald Taylor, £3 14s ; Alexander Maokie v. G. Thompson, £1 lis ; Thoinas Waring v. John Coombes, 10s; James Gilbert v. Richard George, £3 113 4d ; Joseph Baii d v. .John Walker, I'l 10s; Henry Phillips v. Thomas Moyiav £2 los. JrDGME.N-rSr.MMONSEs.—Ri' herd Laishley v. Thomas 11. Juckes : £?9 Us 10J. The defendant was ordered to pay £. -: S4 Ss 10.1 (debt and costs) before the loth December, or, in default, be imprisoned for six weeks. William Wilson v. Arthur Brett, £13 lis. Tiie defendant did not appear. He was ordered to pay £14 Gs on or before the s:h of January, ISS2, or, in default, to be imprisoned for a mouth. James Llempsey v. Mefnnis. The defendant was ordered to pay £39 ISs 5d 0:1 or before the ;>th of January, or. in default, to be imprisoned for six weeks.

Adjourn El/.—James J.'raser v. Francis Dyer, claim, £0 (id : Charles I. KUur v. James beinpsey, £ t : '.i- .l)d; Mary Russell v. {William fjcott, is: 17- Gd ; Somcrficld and Leek v. C. K. lirown, £7 19s Id ; same v. Alfred Fivee«, £14 Uji ; Uuline v. Thomas Kollv, £4 2s.

Bal!Eu v. GEOF:f:E.—Claim, £S 1 (is (3d. Mr. George for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mackecluiie lor the defendant. Tin's was a claim for professional services. The plaiutili :s a surveyor and civil engineer. The defendant is Major George, a landholder at Kpsom. It appeared that in the first instance, the defendant had engaged the plaintilF to survey sonic 40 acres of land to be brought within the operation of the Laud Transfer Act. Kor this the defendant paid the plaintiff £12 10s. He next asked Mr. Baber to survey (to lay off) six acres which had been sold to Mr. Byron. For this the plaintiff oha-ged as above. The defendant refused to pay it as an exorbitant charge, when compared with the charge for surveying the 40 acres ; that it was excessive as found upon inquiry made of other surveyors. Moreover, Mr. Percy Smith had said that £4 4s was a fair price for the work, and this sum was paid into Court. 111 reply to this, the plaintiff said that further instructions were given to him, by which he had to change the lines. The defendant said if there were such instructions they were not given by his instruction or authority. The evidence taken was very voluminous, and related to the charges which might be made by surveyors and engineers under a great variety of circumstances. Mo-sits. Hammond, Boylan, and Warner, were examined at great length as to the customary charges. His Worship said he had considered the evidence very carefully, and did not think there had been any overcharge. Judgment for plaintiff'. Si'EAK v. Goodman. —Mr. lveetly for plaintiff, and Mr. Laishley for defendant. In this case a set-oil"had been put in,and Mr. Laishley applied that the set-oil be withdrawn, and the case adjourned till next Court day, which application was granted. Meanwhile, the defendant will bring a crossaction against the plaintiff'.

POLICE COURT.—Thursday. [liefoie Messrs. F. 1.. Prime and A. Clements, Justices.] Diutnkenxkss.—Thomas McGourleck was lined 10s and costs, or in default, 4S hours' imprisonment, for a scconrt offence of drunkenness, and was mulcted in a similar penalty for assaulting Kobert JlcCullough. Lakck.ny.—Richard James Selliy was charged witli stealing a mattress and a quantity of clothing, etc., value £3 lljs, the property of John Taylor. He was convicted, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. A.^.saclt.—Elizabeth Hcwson, charged with assaulting- her husband, had been remanded to allbrd lie.' an opportunity to clear out. When the case was called, it was stated that she had gone away, and the ease was withdrawn.