LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7656, 5 June 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—JUDGE'S CHAMBERS. Friday, June 4. [Before His Honor Mr. Juftlfft GlUles.l Probate.—Probate was granted In the will of Samuel Compton. Edward Gkokgk.—Mr. Browning moved to register copy of will, and was instructed that an affidavit of thb caune of delay should be filed. ' Sharp and Co. v. Mason Bros.—This was a motion by Mr. Devore, that defendant be allowed to file a statement of defence, and it was ordered that defendant have leave to defend, plaintiff filing claim within seven days, and defendant his defence within like time. Kelly v. Kelly.Mr. Browning moved that alimony be granted to the petitioner, Helen Kelly, also that petitioner may file a bill of costs for taxation, and that a commission should isauo for examination of petitioner. These three applications were adjourned until next chamber day.

R.M. COURT.-Friday.

[Before Mr. H. G. S&th Smith, R.M.] J. Goto, an v. Sand all. —This wan a claim for £17 Bb, for work done at Riverhead. Mr. Cotter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. From the statement of the plaintiff it appeared that he had worked for the defendant under a contract which waß to be carried out by Lee and Robinson, but was in the name of the defendant Sandall, because Lee was a bankrupt. He agreed to go to work in December, ISSS, and agreed with Lee that he was to have 25s a week and found. He worked on these terms from January to May, living with Lee and Kobinion during that time. He was not in any way connected by partnership with them. He claimed the money due to him from the defendant, who he knew to be the principal man in the contract. Sandall had offered to pay him £5 on account, and the remainder when the job was settled up for, but be declined that offer. Walker Morley gave} evidence showing that he had been employed on the same job, and bad been paid money by Sandall, who had also said to him that the plaintiff must be paid, and never denied his liability. Mr. O. Mays, Chairman of the Waitemata County Council, said he remembered a certain job being let to Mr. Sandall by that Council, and he as chairman paid the defendant £100 on account of the contract. The contract was for Sandall and Co., but the bond was signed by Richard Sandall, Lee and Robinson being his sureties. The balance of the contract, £49, had not been paid, as they had received notice to withhold it because some wages had not been paid. When Sandall was asked why Gonlan was not paid, he said he had paid him all he was worth, or something to that effect. Neil Walker, labourer, was called in corroboration. Mr. Cooper, for the defendant, maintained that the agreement of the plaintiff was simply with Lee and Robinson, and also that he was a partner with them in the working of the oontr&ct. He called the defendant, who said the oontraot was made for Lee, Robinson, and Gonlan, bat he did not know Gonlan at the time. For the wages of Walker Morley he had become personally responsible, but not for those of the plaintiff. He knew nothing about Gonlan's engagement until he got the summons. He had offered to advance to Lee £5 for Gonlan on security. He had paid Lee £129 under the contract, but had only received £100. The money had to go through him, but he had no personal interest in the contract. J. Lee and Burgess also gave evidence in support of defendant's case. Bis Honor found for the plaintiff for £17 18a, with costs £3 19s.

Jas. Davis v. Clellan.—Claim, £26 in a promissory note. Mr, Theo. Cooper appeared for the defendant. Plaintiff produced the note, which bore the endorsement of the defendant, and said when the bill was dishonoured at the he applied to the defendant for payment, but reoeived notice from Messrs. Devore and Cooper that he would plead infancy. He accepted the note in settlement of the balance between himself and the defendant. He did not know anything about the people who made the bill, but took it on the strength of the defendant's endowment. Mr, Cooper submitted that defendant must fail in his case without their going into the question of infancy, which plea was not raised for the purpose of getting any undue benefit. Plaintiff had made no endeavour to find out those who made the bill, but had sued defendant on his endorsement. There was no evidence that the bill had been dishonoured, and plaintiff had given no notice to the defendant that it had been. The plea of infancy had been proved by the defendant's mother, whose statement on a previous occasion showed that he was a minor when the bill was endorsed, and also when it was dishonoured. Plaintiff said defendant was in business on his own account, and took contracts and employed men. He did not want his mother then. Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs, £4 16ei.

POLICE COURT Friday.

Before, Messrs. C. D. Whitonmbe, W. Duncan, and W. Weston, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness. men and a woman were fined 5s and costs, or 24 hoars in default, for this offence. Habitual Drunkenness.—Sarah Thornton, for drunkenness in Queen-street, and also with being an hab&uaj. drunkard, was fined 20s and costs, or, in default of payment, 14 days' hard labour. The Brothers' Quarrel. — William Knox appeared, on remand, on tfie charge of assaulting John Knox, by striking him on the face and body when on a yacht in the harbour on June 1. Sergeant Pratt intimated that Dr. Bond had telephoned from the Hospital that the prosecutor was still unable to appear. A remand to Monday would be necessary. Remanded to Monday, and application for the renewal of bail granted. Womun's Quabrell,—Mary Ann Curtis, alias Edwards, and Bridget Johnston, were conjointly charged on summons with assaulting Margaret Bedford, by catching her by the head, and striking her with a candlestick, on May 31. The <avidence of the prosecutrix and Mar y Harrison was offered, when the Bench dismissed the information without going any further.