LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6947, 22 February 1884, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

EM. COORT.—Thursday. [Before H. : G. Seth Smith, £«q., R.M ] -The weekly sitting to hear, and determine 1 small; debt claims . was held to-day, and the following-business disposed.of ; UNDEFENDED --''-CASES .(JoDGMEHT FOE Plaintiff.-).—Sullivan ,-and -McKenna v.; O'Keef, £4 16s, costs £2 163 ; 11. Fountain v. G. \Vneaton;:£l 10s 6d, costs £1 -2s- 6d ; the same v. G. McCaslin,£s Is,- costs £1 17s ; Thomas iTbwaites v. Joha Waymouth, £3 10s 10 J, costs £1 ,2s ■' 6tl ; --Wiseman-.V;. G. Saville, : £5; costs £1 33 6d ; Sullivan and McKenna v. Herbert Healey; £2 2s fid, costs £2: 15s ; D. B„ Cruickshank v. R. C. McDonald, £15, costs £2 5s ; P. A. Philips ■.V... Richard Morrow, £4 103, 12-s ;. J. Phillips v. R. J. Clarke, £12 10s, costs £1 4s ;. J.. ! Kingyv. -.-H.. Kirkwood, £1 12s 6d, costs £1 2s 6:1 ; F. Tiernan v. lona G.M. Co., £9 12a, :cost9 £1 17s ; L.. Mo?es vi J. A. Jagger, ±b;- costs-16s ;: liller. v:.Harvey; £5 ■2s Id; coats 16s ; U. J.. Hill and Co. v. H. Connop, £16 2s Cd, costs £2 ss. : Jijligmk.nt Monahan v. Hugh Kirkwood, .£22 3s;. The defendant - Was-exaunned; and the. further -hearing was adjourned -for a month. Timothy C' onin V; i John Paul;. £8.12s 6ds Ordered to pay by t,instalments of 8s a month or in default teu.: i days' imprisonment; Lewis Moses v. J. H. Henry, £9 13s. Ordered to pay, by instali ments of 5s a week; or ten dayii' imprisuni ment. Jam»a:Rae v; Jame* Buckland; £46 r Is. The defendant was ordered to pay forth- | with, or in default ono month's imprisonment. ... . - Adj -urned;—: J; McElroy v. Miin'e (appli-; cation for re:hearnig) ;G. H. Thompson-v. - . J:. Kimberley. £1 fi 2s 6d ; J; Craig; y. Peter torenzi, £4:14s 6di &TKDCK ,C; MacCormick v. Thomas t'ssher, £16 2s 6d, with costs, £4 ISs ; the same v. G. T. Keetley, £9, with £3 12s costs. v. Donovan.—Claim, £14 15s. ■ Mr; JirooUiieltl for the pUintifT, Mr; Tole for the defendaut The; plaintiff is a surgeon . . I'eiitist, the defendant, is a setter living; in Onehunga. The action, was. brought to recover the. price of a set of artificial, teeth i prepared and suppied to the wife ofthe.de i feiiiiant. The plaintifTs .wife, went with another lady to the plaintiff's rooms ii Onehunga.. A conversation took place as tithe desirability of the lady having a set of teeth.. I' : 'intiff advised her to have a set. She said she must consult her husband.. ■ According, to the plaintiff she ordered; th/ : teeth. Subsequently, she r.-fused to ke-[j. ttiem on the ground that .they, did not fit ■ i he plaintiff Bwore that they; wei;e" a beau-. tiful fit, becaune, although the. lady had ni -back teeth to fasten them to, the,plate, die! not move." Cross-examined by Mr. Tole : The plaintiff said he had been thirteen yeara medical man. He left his diploma witl iiis banker; Such,a document was too vain able to carry about with him. Be informed counsel 1 for the defendant the rejiistra- , tion of his Same as a Licentiate of Dental Surgery could be seen. Mr. Tole said the plain, : till be nonsuited; not being . able t> : produce his diploma and not having re gistered in New Zealand under th . Dental Surgery Act, or under the Den . tists Act of the Imperial Parliament Mr. Brookfield said the. statute, cited bj. Mr. Tole prevented the plaintiff recovering n ; fee for any dental operation. For instance he. could not recover for the. operationupon, this lady's, mouth. But this was ai. action to recover for gpod.s,.supplied—viz., ;> Si t of artificial ti.eth. This only questiov was as to the value and reasonable chargr. His. Worship >aid. the teeth were. made, for ii specifi.6 purpose; the. mouth of the pers-1, for whom they were made had;, to be preparei; they would have to bo fitted ; th'e.v were a part of. a. series of ac£s,. without which they would be of no use. Whether "the supply of the teeth." was a dental . operation it was not necessary to say. There was no evidence whatever of qualifica tion. Nonsuited..

J'rTFOKI) V. I.NGKAM. AND Co.—Clailli £32'133.. Mr. Speed for tho plaintiff; Mr . S. ilesketh for the,-defendants. •'Tha.'plajn'tifl ia a braSE-fitter, and. the action, was,brought to recover for a number of burners made in order- Tho plaintiff swore ihat the goodssv.ere.supplied ; that, they were made according to instructions. Tho defence was.that : the goods were: not according .to .instructions, and' that they would not answer tho specific : purpose. :for which they were ..made. Tht •'burners" were, of a special kind; in tended for the combustion of " heptolin—a kind of light petroleum oil to b» burnt iii, lamps." The; plaintiff, deposed to make the burners according to order. Tht • xaniitiatipn and cross-examination of wignpss related chiefly to detads ot construction, and to tho manuer in which the .articles as -upplied answered the purpose , for which they were made.' After hearing the evidence and addresses by counsel, His Worship did not consider the plaintiff entitled to recover, and judgment: was:given for delendant, with eosts. Ihe costs were £5 12s. . The Court thsn adjourned until ten o'clock next day. POLICE COU UT .^-Thursday. [Before. HU-Worship. the Mavor and.Mr. 'E. Isaacs,; j.P 1 .'JJ'ku.nK* N'^'iiss.. —ifdlia Mclsaacs >vas re? manded for seven days, suffering .from the effects of drink. Drunk and Desertiox.—Nicholas Codd, charge,i with being a habitual drunkard, was turtner charged with damaging a pair ol inen trousers, the property of ponstable Buns;, worth 18s. He pleaded guilty to the dtst offence, but had no recollection of damaging the trousm. Constable Burns gave evidence. The. prisoner, when arrested, was very violent. He had to get assistance to bring him to the lock-up; He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, and (in default' of paying for, the trousers), he- was sentenced .to. an additional 14 days' imprisonment; Charles ■ Mackay, charge i with oeiug drunk, was also ch»rgen with damaging the uniform coat of Constable. Ward, to tho value of £2. He pleaded guilty to being.drunk, but knew nothing of. damaging the trousers. It appeared that: the: prisoner was very violent in the cell, and wnen visited by the constable he-caught his tunic ny the shoulder strap, and tore it down the side. Accused, who belongs to the steamer Manapouri, said he had no means to pa tor the,damage. He was ordered to pay £'2 and costs, or (m default) duffer a month's imprisonment. VaGßAKCV.—Margaret Moran was cliarg.< d with having no lawful visible nieans oi. Support. Mr. 'l'hco Cooper appeared - for the defendant and pleaded not guilty: Sergeant White stated toat one brothel kept by the defendant and others in Kokeby- : street was a great nttisat.ee, and in consequence of the complaints made the detectives Visited, the place to caution the occupants. The defendant was so abusive that .they had to arrest her. Detective Walker gave evidence of the character of. the prisoner; She. got her living by prostitution, and. had no other Means of support.. In cross-examina-tioh the witness said he went to. the brothel by instructions from the Superintendent.of: Police' to caution the. women against'harbouring " bullies," when the prisoner set on them, and abused them; and it was. in consequence of this he arreat-d her. Detective Hughes who was with Detective Walker, gave corroborative evidence, and Sergeant (ramble gave evidence as to. the chaiacter of the accused. Mr. Cooper contended that the police had: failed to prove their case. Prostitution ,of itself was not unlawful. It required, that she should loiter in the 'street, or solicit for prostitution, to make it an offence uuder the Act. He challenged: the, right of the police to go into a private, house without a warrant, except there was, a disturbance at the time. The case was dismissed with a caution..

GiTyßy-LAws.—ThomasLupton, for allowirig four horses: to be at; large in Albertstreet, was ; mulcted 1 in expenses, 1 Is, having already paid £2 damages. Georije i\lcCashn, : allowing cow to. wander in Exeter-street, was. fined 5s -and'..costs.

Women's Quarrels:— Bridget Burns was charged - with using. provoking language to Mary ■ Knoxi Mr, Theo. Cooper, for. .the. defence, pleaded, not s*uiltyi Mr, Tule. ap,-, pfeared. for 1 the prosesutiouv .The. parties, .to the action were neighbours in hobeby-.street.. The'row on this occasion arose out of a valentine which Mrs. Burns j.eceiyed, and which 1 she supposed . Airs.,..Knox sent,.. so (she came to ' her ■ back, - door .and abused • herself and ■" her y daughter,-. and.threatened to ■ tomahawk them. The prosecutrix and Mary; Fisher, her daughter, James Ryan, a neighbour, and Mary, Cavanagh, aave evidence as to the language ; used by the defendant: -f ; The defence waa a denial on the part of tiio defendant of. ever .having ;used the language complained ot. She I was bound over in her own recogni».an:ea of £10, and ordered to pay the.costs. The Court allowed defeadaht.tw . months' time to pay the costs, which ani'unted to £4 2s,