LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9075, 8 June 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.— Thursday. . [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Judgments for Plaintiffs.—ln the following cases judgment went for the plaintiffs by default—Executors of J. Elliott v. Mrs. McDonald, £1 4s, costs 6s ; W. E. Payne v. Mrs. S. Southerby, £3 5s 4d, costs 6s; Jas. Rae v. C. Dickson, £16 3s 6d, costs £1; W. E. Payne v. Ellen Waller, £2 17s 2d, costs 19s 6d ; Arthur and Buddie v. John Delaney, £1, costs 8s; Thotoas Bishop v. Mrs. Sicilian, 9s sd, costs 6s; Hesketh and Aitken v. Edward Carr, £7 8s 3d, costs £1 12s; T. Scott v. F. E. Rosser, £1 12s Id, costs 6s; J. Letham v. M. Grace, £1 16s Bd, costs 6s ; J. A. Heldt v. G. Smith, £2, costs 6s; the Rationalist Newspaper Co. v. E. Martin, 6s, costs 6s; Thos. Wilson v. Jas. Bound, £10 ss, costs £2 4s ; Smeeton Bros. v. Geo. Petchell, £3 10s 3d, costs 19s 6d; Jas. Pearce v. A. Cunningham, £7, costs £2 los; Jas. Mackie v. Wm. Baker, £3 6s, costs 7s; D. B. Orchard v. Wm. John Costello,. £10 Is 6dj costs £2 IS.i. , E. Griffin v. Joseph Hardwick.— Mr. Clendon appeared for the defence. Sir Wm. Wasteneys was to have appeared for the plaintiff, but he sent a note saying he had withdrawn from the case, and as plaintiff did nob appear the case was allowed to stand over until the afternoon.

Watt Bros. v. G. Sinnett.—This was an action to recover £1. The plaintiffs were painters and sign writers, and had been engaged by the defendant to do certain lettering over the pulpit of a church at the North Snore, but the work was stopped by the committee. The defendant was the contractor for painting the church, and plaintiff sent in the claim to the defendant for the time lost over the work, and for what was partly done. It was an old claim, standing over since 1883. Two years ago plaintiff sent in his claim, and defendant promised to pay after he had seen Mr. Roberts the architect, but he subsequently denied all liability, and said Mr. Roberts was responsible. The defendant in his evidence said he had been asked by Mr. Roberts to recommend some one to do the decorative work over the pulpit arch, and recommended Mr. Watts, and at Mr. Roberts' request he sent plaintiff to him for instructions. Defendant denied that he was in any way responsible, nor was it any part of his contract, and lie never mado himself liable for the amount. Mr. R. J. Roberts, architect, deposed that the colour put on by the plaintiff as the groundwork for the writing was unsuitable, and not what ho had selected, and he would not allow the writing to be put on it. Subsequently, some two years after, the work was done by another painter, as a free gift to the church, but when the claim was made he offered to give an order on the committee for 10s, which was more than the value of the work done, at the ordinary rate. Witness had nothing to do with Mr. Sinnett, and employed the plaintiff as a decorator. The plaintiff was nonsuited, without costs.

McLaughlin* and Another v. Claridge. —Mr. Buckland appeared for the defendant, but plaintiff did not appear. £1 5s had been paid into Court. It appeared there were two defendants, and the claim of one was paid, that against the other being withdrawn. Mr. Buckland applied for judgment for costs, and that the money paid into Court should be impounded for the costs. His Worship allowed £4 17s costs, and consented to the £1 as going towards these costs.

Cart Wright v. Neilson.—This was a claim for £1 6s 6d. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff. There was no appearance for the defendant, and judgment was given for frhe amount of the claim and costs, 6s. Edwin Griffin v. Haiidwick.—The plaintiff failing to appear at two o'clock, Mr. G'lendon asked for the case to be struck out: Struck out, with costs to defendant, £4 6s 6d.

J. S. Gibbons v. M. H. Frost.—Mr. J. P. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant appeared without counsel, and admitted a part of the claim, £10 10s, but disputed an item of £7. The plaintiff did not wish to plead the statute of limitation in regard to this amount. The plaintiff deposed that in July, 1880, lie advanced £7 15s to the defendant, and in February last ho had a conversation with Mr. Frost, and asked him to pay the amount. He said lie Svould when ho had a cheque of Mr. Bunyard for- £12 cashed, but if witness cashed the cheque it would do as well. He assured him the cheque was a good one, so witness drew a cheque for £5, which he gave defendant as change for the £12. Mr. Bunyard's cheque was dishonoured, but witness's cheque was cashed. There was an item for £2 for interest, but that was confessed. Witness gave a receipt for £7 when he received the cheque. Defendant went into the box and produced the receipt for £7. He said the cheque for £12 was paid to him by Bunyard for work done, and he thought it valid. Judgment was given for the amount of the claim, and costs, £2 6s.

McLaughlin and Another v. Claridge. —The claim was for £8 Is. This case had been disposed of at an earlier stage, but it was now by consent reinstated. Mr. Franklin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Buckland for the defence. The amount of £1 5s was paid into Court in settlement of the claim and costs. The claim was for wages for cutting firewood. William Reynolds, who was mate with McLaughlin in cutting the firewood, gave evidence as to the items of the claim. Besides cutting the firewood, witness had been separately employed by the defendant to do certain roid works. In the claim, however, Mr. Franklin claimed for both, and said that he would only claim judgment for half. The defendant admitted that plaintiff Reynolds was entitled to 12s 9d. McLaughlin had withdrawn from the case, and both agreed to take £1 each, but now Reynolds preferred to go to law. The Court decided to hear the evidence, and plaintiff gave evidoneo as to the work done. He had made no settlement, but McLaughlin had made a settlement for £1, after proceedings were taken, and after Mr. Franklin had been instructed, and without any authority from witness. Mr. Buckland contended thero was no case to answer, as the action was released by McLaughlin. His Worship did nob think the case should be barred by McLaughlin's action in withdrawing his case on payment of £1. He thought they should hear tho evidence. The witness was then cross-examined as to the work done. The defendant was also examined. He said that McLaughlin, Reynolds, and himself met aftor the firewood was cut, and they agreed that 193 9d was duo to McLaughlin and to Reynolds, and he paid McLaughlin £1. Roynolds made no objection. He never employed Reynolds to cart for him, but he helped once to load a cart with him voluntarily. His Worship said he saw no reason to alter the decision this morning, except in regard to costs. . The case was dismissed, with costs £3 16s. Mr. Buckland claimed that the £1 5s paid into Court should be impounded ; but Mr. Franklin claimed that the solicitor's lien was a first claim on money paid into Court. His Worship allowed the question to stand over until next day. Edward Downing v. Gabolinski.— This was an action to recover the sum of £6 5s Bd. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff and, and Mr. Baume for the defence. The plaintiff was an a; rated water manufacturer, and tho defendant a hotelkeeper. After hearing the evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs £2 ss.

POLICE COURT.—Thursday. [Before Messrs. F. G. Clavton and S. Y. Collins, J.TVs]

Drunkenness.—Fanny Juno and Hugh Tuohy were fined 5s and costs, or twentyfour hours' imprisonment, and Goo. Heigh - way 10s and costs, or forty-eight hours' imprisonment, for being drunk.

Obscene Language.— Margaret Sarah Turner was charged with a breach "of the Police Offences Act, 18S4, by up ing obscene language in Hobson-street, on Wednesday. Constable Grey proved the case. The language used was of the filthiest description. The Bench sentenced her to one month's imprisonment.

Bad Characters. — Jeremiah Driscoll, Joseph McNamara, and Edwin Neale were charged with a breach of the Police Offences Act, ISS4, by having no lawful visible means of support. Against Driscoll there was a list of eighteen previous convictions, against McNamara nine previous convictions, while Neale had a record as an idle and disorderly person. A charge of being rogues and vagabonds was also made against Driscoll and McNamara, and a charge of being an incorrigible rogue against Neale. The prisoners all pleaded not guilty in defiant emi-insolent fashion, ana their conduct

throughout the case was such as to produce no doubt in the minds of all present as to their characters. Detectives Herbert and Tuohy testified as to the accuseds' reputations. They were said to be idle and dissolute fellows, two of them convicted thieves, and the other the associate of thieves. Driscoll, it was stated, cot a living by robbing drunken men, ana upon the wages of a prostitute, who had complained to the police of his brutal conduct to her. McNamara had been in gaol several times, and when in town he was the associate of thieves and vagabonds. Neale, while having no convictions against him for crime, had been convicted for drunkenness, bub he was known as a general bad character. Isaac Cairn, of Mercer, deposed that he met the three prisoners at the Thames Hotel on Wednesday. He treated them, and while with them one of them robbed him. Witness thought it was Driscoll who put his hand in witness's pocket. Witness had a black eye, which, it incidentally came out, was given him by Driscoll. James Bird, labourer, Alexandra-street, stated he saw Driscoll and Neale go into the Thames Hotel with Cairns, and McNamara stood outside looking through the window, shading his eyes. In about twenty minutes Driscoll, Neale, and Cairns came out ; the latter's face was bleeding. Driscoll, as he came out, took his hand out of his coat-pocket, and showed McNamara a handful of money. He also saw Neale afterwards with a lot of money. Bird told Constable Graham of what he had seen. A witness named Frank Smith corroborated Bird's evidence. The prisoner Driscoll called his mother, who stated he had a home to go to, and was at home every evening, and gob his meals there. His father was intending to send him to Wellington, where there was work for him. The Bench considered the charges proved, and sentenced Driscoll and Neale to twelve months' imprisonment, and McNamara to six months' imprisonment.