LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9184, 13 October 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Judge's Chambers. Friday. [Before Ilis Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] Probate.—Probate was granted to the executors in the wills of Ruth Oliver, Thomas Wm. Weafcherlrill, and Agnes Kilgour. Administration , .—On the motion of Mr. Theo. Cooper, letters of administration were granted in the estate of William Ford, and one surety was dispensed with.

R.M. COURT.—Friday. j [Bofore 11. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.] Bailey v. Ann Jane Arnold.—The claim was for £2 14s. Mr. Buckland appeared for the judgment creditor, and Mr. O'Meaghcr for the debtor. She denied that she was manager of the Occidental Hotel. She was only a servant there, and Mr. Lowten was the licensee. She denied that she had a bill of sale over the furniture. Tho landlord had a bill of sale over everything in the house, and she could not remove anything. Mr. Buckland produced a trade protection gazette, showing that a bill of sale for £240 was made in her name over the furniture of the hotel, but she said she knew nothing of it, and knew nothing of what arrangements had been made by Mr. Lowten, and she had no means of paying. The wine which was charged for was a sample sent by Mr. Bailey's traveller, and was never ordered, and was never used. She" positively denied that she was the proprietress of the hotel. The case was adjourned for a week for the production of the bill of sale referred to. Arthur Heather v. Ah Lung.—The amount of the debt was £7 14s lOd. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the judgment creditor. Thomas Ah Quoi was called as interpreter, bub the defendant refueed to have him, and brought in another Chinaman, but the Court found that the new interpreter was incompetent, and he was ordered to stand by and listen whether Ah Quoi, who was then sworn, interpreted properly. The debtor was sworn on a match. In reply to Mr. Cooper the debtor pfcated that he was a fruit hawker, and kept a shop in Wakefield-street, which belonged to Ah Kew. It was a Chinese boarding-house, and which he managed, but he got no payment, only his tucker. He denied that he had money in the Savings Bank, although he had some three years ago for a month or two, bub he lost that through opium smoking. The further hearing of the case was postponed in order that James Ah Kew might be subpoenaed. Robert Wμ. Gallagher v. James Salisbury.—Claim £4 8s 3d. Ordered to pay on or before the 19th of October, or in default seven days' imprisonment. Robert Hutchinson v. J/mes Hill.— Claim £1 10s Id. Ordered to pay 2s 6d per week. E. T. Caktwrioiit v. Grainger and Others.—This was a claim for £9 17s against the Poultry Association for tke recovery of prizes won by the plaintiff at the show held in July last, and for money which he paid in excess of entry money under protest. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Cotter and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendants, the committee of the Association. The plaintiff's case hod been closed on the previous day, and Mr. Cooper and Mr. Cotter had moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that no cause of action had been proved, and that fraud was shown on the part of the plaintiff'. Mr. Burton replied to the nonsuit points, after which Mr. Cotter replied to Mr. Burton. His Worship summed up the points of the case at length. He held that the committee had acted according to the rules, and were justified in coming; to the decision which they did. Plaintiff must be nonsuited. Costs £5 11s 6d. Dunn and Drummond v. Briggs.— Claim, £8 lCs 4d, for repairs to the steamer Ruby. Mr. Stone for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bauinc for the defence. This was a claim for repairs effected by plaintiffs to the order of the engineer of the Ruby. Mr. Smith gave evidence as to the order and to its execution. Waltor Slater, engineer of the Ruby, depoasd that on July the 4th he, accompanied dv the captain of the Ruby, gave the order to Mr. Smith. Neither he nor the captain had ever previously given any order to ALr. Smith on account of Mr. Briggs, the owner. Mr. Baume moved for a nonsuit on the ground that it had not been proved that special authority by tho owner had been given to either the captain or the engineer to order the repairs. His Worship concurred in this contention, and nonsuited the plaintiff with costs, £1 Is. Shanlby v. Dorino.—Claim £5 damages, and 5s for return of two dozen aerated mineral water bottles. Mr. S. Hesketvh for plaintiff, Mr. Cotter for defendant. The object of the action by the plaintiff was to prevent any other manufacturer usinr his bottles. Charles Hays (an employe of defendant), the defendant, and George Simpson (the carter for the plaintiff) gave evidence. His Worship said that if tho bottles had ben found in Mr. Doring'e possession, the plaintiff would have been entitled to judgment, but owing to their not being found in his possession plaintiff must bo nonsuited. Costs £1 Is.