LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8629, 27 July 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

X.M. COURT.— Saturday. ' [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Glaus Petersen v. John Ryan.This was a claim for the sum of £12 Bs, for 67 tons of firewood alleged ; to have been sold by defendant for plaintiff, the proceeds for which had not been received by Petersen. Mr. E. W. Barton appeared• for the plaintiff, and Dr. Laishley for the defendant. The plaintiff contended that the money had not been paid over to him, but - defendant stated that £8 had been paid to plaintiff's son. The eon had no authority to receive the money, and had never given the same to his father. Ib was agreed that the money should be sent to the plaintiff. The case for the defence was that the money had been paid to the son, who afterwards stated that he lost the money or that it had been stolen from him. The defendant was told by the son that he (the son) was authorised to receive the money, and this statement was borne out. by the father until after the money had disappeared. ,The defendant, therefore, claimed that the sum of £8 had been paid, and the balance, £4 Bs, had since been paid into Court. After the evidence on both sides was heard the hearing of the argument was adjourned until Tuesday next at two' o'clock.

POLICE COURT.—Saturday. [Before Dr. Giles, B.M.] Drunkenness.Alfred Jacobs was fined 10s and costs, or, in default, 48 hours' hard labour. Larceny . —Margaret Eliza Doylo was charged with having stolon, on the 18th of March last, one silver watch, and one lady's gold chain, valued in all at £10, the property of Henry Shailer. Accused pleaded guilty. Sergeant-Major Pratt stated that the accused had been working at Mr. Shailer's. The articles were nob missed until the present week. Suspicion rested on the accused. Detective Ede and Mr. Shailer waited upon her, and she admitted the theft. Sentence was deferred pending the report of the probation officer. Bail was allowed, accused in £25, and one surety of the same amount. Maintenance. — Thomas Garlick was charged with having failed to comply with an order of the Court for the maintenance of his children, having allowed the sum of £27 12s to be in arrears. The case was adjourned for one month.