LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6421, 16 June 1882, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

BESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Thcesdat. [Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., E.iT.J '-' The weekly sitting of the Court was held this morning, and the following business was disposed of :— Uxoefended Cases (Judgments iron PilaikTiFjru).—W. J. Dalton v. H. M.-Heighten, £3 <17s (costs £1 2s Cd); Burcholl Brothers v. W. W. Biat £1 4s (costs £1 2s Cd); Janet H. Gilchrist v. c; B. Owen £7 7 a (costs £1 17s); Gocrge Staines y. Thoraas Alacbattie, £7 Is (costs £211s) ; Ilendry and VPhitley v. S. Vivian, £4 10s Cd (costs £l 2s Cd); H. F. Anderson v. Arthur H. Morriso2,£so (costs £1 13s). Adjouiined.—Porter and Co. v. Camp, Penalligen v. Dogherty, Soraerfleld and Lock v. Brown, Shearer v. Comrie, Partington and Co. v. Kobinson, £27 2s. Kikby v. Comzix and CooKEii.—Claim £15 Mr. Keetley for the plaintiff ; Mr. Theophilus Ccoper (Russell and Devore) for the defendants. The action wa3 brought to recover money placed in the hands of the defendants, who are solicitors, to prosecute an action against another firm of solicitors, for the purpose of sotting aside a deed. From the statement ot the plaintiff it appeared th&t he employed the defendantsto carry on the suit. He paid them a retaining fee. Ultimately they declined to proceed on the ground that the plaintiff had no case. The iacts in support of the defendants' case were that they had certain things to do, viz., deeds to copy and other professional work to do. They had to ree Mr. ilacCormick. as counsel in the cause, and copy deeds. &<•., according to lir. AlacCormick"a instructions. They handed in a bill of particulars of costs incurred. It happened, however, that a second deed was discovered confirming the deed to be set aside, and this being the position of the matter the plaintiff demanded the repayment of the money (£ls) which he had paid to the defendants. His Worship said that so fur as the charges were concerned they were exceedingly moderate. Mr. Keetley: They appear to me to be very mild indeed. His Worship : They charged £5 4s for copying deeds,' and £3 Ss fees paid to Mr. MacCormick. Hr.-T. Cooper : The on]> sum of money the defendants appeal to have had in the transaction was £2 2s, paid to them as retaining feo. Plaintiff : The defendants were not asked for an opinion. They were asked to go on with the case. Judge iiichmond said I had a good case. Mr. T. Cooper : The leurned Judge said that if what Mr. Kirby stated were true, he deserved sympathy. His Worship: Tho defendants say they did the work. In doing the work this second deed turned up. They found there was no case. It was better for plaintiff they should have found out that, at a cost of £13 Is, the amount of their bill, than that plaintiff should have been mulcted in the cost of losing his suit, which might amount to £100. I have considered this c«se thoroughly, and it appears to me that I cannot help him He retained the defendants to do certain work, which they did. In any case, they would have a lien upon that £15 nntil their costs wero paid. Nonsuited.

Laj?heey v. Drabble —Claim: £7 15s Bd. This was an action to recover damage consequent upon breach of special contract. The agentol the defendant waited upon the plaintiff for the purpose of. raising a loan of £100. The plaintiff agreed to lend the nionoy on mortgage, and prepared the necessary deed. It turned out that the title to the property which formed the security was defective. The plaintiff said that thoro was no claim, because of the contract of tuo loan fulling through, but for the work done in carrying out the contract, which was a part of it. The proposfd mortgage was a second mortgage, and the first had not been stamped or registered. His Worship: Captain Drabble found that it would cost more than he'cared to pay to put the title right; consequently he withdrew from the contract. The plaintiff, howevor, had entered upon the contract with the tlefeßdant, drew up the deeds, ic. The defendant would be entitled to the " expense" ont of pocket. The damage - mxist be measured by the trouble and expense he was put to in doing what was necessary on his part to fulfil the contract. The plaintiff offered to take judgment for £5 5s without costs. Judgment accordingly. t

POLICE COURT.—Thursday. (Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., R.3L] AlTjEqed Labcknt.—James Welsh, alias James Sydney, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, valued at 15s, the property of Phillip Kearns. As there was some reason to doubt whether this was a case of larceny, the case was postponed in order that the police might inquire into it. In the afternoon the accused was brought up and charged with larceny as a bailee; but, after hearing the eridence, the case was dismissed. Larceny o> , a Coat.—William. Clarkson, aliasSmith, Hyde, Walker, Swaboy, and Yorkey, was charged with stealing a coat, valued at 7s 6d, the propi rty of Messrs. Levi and Hart, on tho 14th instant. As there was a number of other cases to be pr«ierred against the prisoner, he was remanded until luesdaynext.

I may properly, in conclusion, express the earnest conviction that we have reached an era of greater importance than that which marked the application of steam. We stand on the threshold of an advance in the arts of combustien which promises wonderful changes in the uses of heat, light, anil power. The lamp which electricity has lighted is not destined to be extinguished, and the power set in motion by the gas-engine is inevitably to devulop. to gigantic proportions. Yet greater scope belongs to the new principle of a cheap gasification of fuels. Most happily these three inventions are. not antagonistic to each other, or to the present industry engaged in the distribution .of lighting gas; but,are, in the highest sense, co-operative each, to •higher development of the other, and of of Fuel for General Purposes, (Seo; S, ©Wight] Dresden; u /-'".