LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9264, 18 January 1889, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.— Thursday. [Before Dr. Giles, B.M.]

Undefended Cases.—ln the following casts judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the action by default :—W. F. Auckland v. J. Mclnerney, £9 7s 9d, costs 10s; Thoi. Williams v. Henderson and Macfarlane, £96 2s Id (a sot-off was filed, but it was withdrawn), and judgment was given for the amount and costs, £6 14s. Archhill Brick and Tile Co. v. John Renwick, £6 5s 6d, costs £1 13s ; McCullough and Co. v. R. Hume, £2 Oβ 3d, costs £1 2s 6d ; Wm. Bennett v. J. T. Hunter, £4 0s 6d, costs 16s 6d ; Duder Bro3. v. Wm, Gordon, 11s 6d, costs 16s 6d ; A. H. Nathan v. Mrs. Littlejohn, £S, costs £1 11s ; Hancock and Co. v. Mrs. Onyon, £1 7s 9d, costs Cs; Geo. Bailey v. Thos. Foley, £6 93 6d, costs £1 11s; H. T. Clarke and another v. Jas. Harper, £13 Os Cd, costs £2 2s ; Wm. Darnton v. Arthur Watson, £5 11s, costs £1 11s.

William Armstrong v. Charles Gilligan.—The plaintiff claimed from the dofondant £9 14s 6d, being moneys payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, for moneys lent and; advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant, at his request, and for moneys paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant, at his request. There was a cros3 action by Gilligan against Armstrong for £40, for detonue, "&c. Mr. Madden appeared for Gilligan and Mr. Williamson for Armstrong. The matter arose out of a dispute between the parties. The parties to the action had been in partnership for the purpose of issuing advertising sheets in Auckland, and after hearing the evidence, which was somewhat lengthy and contradictory, his Worship ordered that in the one case the goods be delivered toGilligan, or in default, pay £7, and in the other case he gave judgment for £7 0s Gd, each party to pay their own costs. Bennett v. Hunter.— This was a claim for £4 5s Gd. Mr. Mahony appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter for defendant. By iigreement judgment was given for the plaintiff for £4 0s 6d, and costs 16s 6d. Thomas Stone v. E. A. Percy.—This was a claim brought by a boy, oleven years of age, for whom Mr. Humphreys appeared, to recover Ss, due. for a fortnight's wages. It appeared the boy had been employed by the defendant to deliver cakes, &e. —in fact, as an errand boy ; and the defence was that the boy had neglected his business and had damaged the goods, and that there were deficiencies in the cash returned. It appears the plaintiff was employed to sell cakes, &c, in the street. The plaintiff and his mother gave evidence, and the defendant gave his version of the affair. After hearing the evidence, judgment was given for the defendant, with costs.

John J. Hunter v. Wμ. Bennett and Robert Holmks.—Claim, £15 2s 6d, for work done. Mr. Cotter appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Mahony for defendant. The witnesses were ordered out of court J. J. Hunter, the plaintiff, doposed that he was a bricklayer, and agreed, at the request of Mr. Bennett, to calculate the quantities for the brickwork of a sewer at Stanley-street, and ho subsequently measured the concrete work, giving the estimates to Air. Bennett. It was understood that plaintiff should perform the brickwork if defendants were the successful tenderers, and when the tenders were opened it was found that that of Bennett and Holmes was the lowest. Bennett subsequently met plaintiff, and told him that thero was a mistake in his estimates for the concrete, by whioh there was a deficiency of £30. Bennett met the plaintiff, and asked him if he was ready to take the work, and he afterwards took it. Nothing was said at any time about his doing the work for £29. Witness did not know for pome time that Holmes was in the matter at all, and he was nettled about it. Crossexamined : It was suggested that plaintiff should stand a third (£10) of the deficiency caused through his error, bub he refused, and said he would assist them as far as he could in carrying out the work. At this stage the Court adjourned until Friday. POLICE COURT.—Thursday. [Before Mr. 11. Wilding, anil Captain AVorsp.] Begging.—John Jones was convicted of begging in Victoria-street, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Larcknv.—William Eldert was charged with stoaling a boiler, worth Bs, the property of Lyons Levy. The case was remanded till Monday next. Larceny as a Bailice.—Peter Peterson was charged that, he being the bailee of a watch, worth 50s, the property of Albert McAskie, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use. The offence was an indictable one, and Sergeant-Major Pratt asked for a remand for a week, as the prosecutor was living in Mangawai. The remand was granted, and the accused was admitted to bail in his own recognisances of £50, and two sureties of £25 each. Indecent Exposure.—John O'Connell was charged with indecent exposure in Ponsonby. After evidence of the offence had been given, Mr. Madden, who appeared for the accused, addressed the Court in mitigation of sentence, and eallod Mr. J. T. Garlick, in whose employ the accused had been, to give evidence as to character. He had been in the employ of the iirtn of Garlick and Cranwell for ten years, and his churacter was all that could be desired, hitonly failing being fond of a glass of beer. Mr. Madden applied to have tho case dealt with under the First Offenders Probation Act, but tho Bench held thafc the Act did not apply, and sentenced tho accused to seven days' imprisonraont with hard labour. Chimney ox Firk.—-R. W. Brown appeared to answer a charge of allowing the chimney of the Greyhound Hotel to be on Sre. Constable McClusky gave evidence. There was no blaze, but a dense smoke issued from the chimney. Superintendent Hughes, of the Fire Brigade, also gave evidence as to the chimney being on fire, and very foul. A fine of 5s and costs was imposed. False Pretences.— Richard Bingham Mason and George Henry Mason were charged with obtaining £8 by moans of a valueless cheque from Edwin and Charles Barker. The cheque was drawn on the Bank of Now Zealand, Thames. Mr. Humphreys appeared for the accused. Edwin Barker, clothier, Karangahape Road, deposed that on the 29th December the prisoners came to his shop at about ten o'clock at night, for some clothes. Richard Mason first came in and chose a boy's suit for his boy, and then chose a man's suit for George Mason. The value of the boy's suit was 18s, and the man's suit 32a. A cheque for £8 (produced) was presented in payment by George Mason, and while witness was examining it, Richard said it was all right, he would put his name and address on the back, giving his address as the Commercial Hotel. It was on a Thames bank, and witness deducted 6d for exchange, and gave £5 19s 6d change. The cheque purported to be drawn by George Henry Mason. The cheque was paid to the firm's credit in the Bank of New Zealand, Newton, bufc was returned endorsed, "no account" with a notice. Charles Rhodes, agent of tho Bank of New Zealand, at Ohineuiuri, deposed to the cheque having been received for payment, but was not paid as there was no account either at tho Thames or Ohinenmri. The witness was cross-examined with a view to showing that Henry George Mason had an account at the bank, and had lodged bullion, but witness said the only account he ever had was a bill for £2 placed to his credit, which he drew one cheque against. He knew that Mason was mining and working a tribute with John S. White. He was in the habit of lodging bullion at the bank, but it was alwaya paid for in cash. Further evidence was given by Detective Walker. A Second Charge.—Same prisoners were then charged with obtaining £3 4s 6d in money, and a pair of boots, worth 15s 6d, from Matthew James Moore, by means of a valueless cheque for £4, drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Paoroa. The evidence was of a similar nature to that in tho previous case, and prisoners wero committed for trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court.