LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8693, 9 October 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday, '[Before Dr. Giles, K.M., and E. F. lizard, Esq.,' .T.E.] Undefended Cases. — Judgments were given for the plaintiffs in the following undefended cases .-—Close Bros. v. Edwin Harrison, £2 Is lOd, and costs, £1 3s Gd • Boylan, Taufield, and Co. v. < R. M. Smith, £3 10s 6d, and costs, £1 13s 6d ; Close Bros. v. C. H. Martin, £7 9s 3d, and costs, £1 12s ; J. Trenwith v. R. M. Smith, £1 3s, and costs, 10s 6d ; H. P. Gibbons and Co. v. John Farrell, £8 5s 3d, and costs, £1 14s; Robert Rew v. Charles Robson, £1, and costs, 6s ; Arch Hill Meat 1 Co. v. G. Cook, £3 13s 'Jd, and costs, 17a Cd ; R. and W. Hellaby ,v. Charles Dunster, £3 19s 3d, and' costs, 17s Gd ; Henry Munro v. Alfred Letford, £1 10s 9d, and costs, 7s. Frederick F. Porter v. John Steele.— Claim £8 12s 3d, for goods supplied. Evidence on behalf of the defendant had been taken in Wellington, and was now read' by His Worship. The plaintiff stated that the goods bad been supplied by a firm, of which he had been a member. When the dissolution,took place this debt along with others was handed over to plaintiff. His Worship said the plaintiff had no personal right to sue, the goods having been supplied by the firm of which he was a member, and no subsequent contract having been entered into between him and the defendant. The plaintiff would be nonsuited with costs £1 lis.

G. Worrall v. James Coyle.—Claim , 17s, for rent of a house. The case for the defence was that) there had not been a 1 sufficient supply of water for the defendant's family, bub,his Worship stated that ' she would have to pay the rent for the time ' she had occupied the house. Judgment for , plaintiff, with costs Gs. Johanna O'Connell v. Mary Ann Toomey. — Claim £19, as the value of goods alleged to have been illegally detained by the defendant. Mr. E. Cooper for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. M. Alexander for the defendant. Mr. Cooper said the case was attended by some peculiar circumstances. ■ The plaintiff had got into trouble over a fire, and had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. When she went to prison she left a largo box containing clothing and other articles with the defendant, and on her release she got it back again. She then discovered, however, that a number of the articles which had been in the box when she wenb into prison were gone, and she therefore now sued for their value. The case for the defence was that the box and its contents had been given up in the same condition as received, that, in fact the box had never been opened. The evidence for the plaintiff having been taken, His Worship said it was a very weak case, and granted a non-suit with costs £1 10s. POLICE COURT. -Thursday. i [Before Messrs. S. Y. Collins and James Groom, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness. — William Montgomery, for a' second offence, was fined 10s and costs, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment. j Drunk and Disorderly.—Michael Ryan was charged with having been drunk in ! Albert-street on the Bth October. The i same defendant was further charged with having committed a breach of the Police i Offences Act by assaulting Constable Rowles whilst in the execution of his duty. Accused pleaded guilty to both charges. Constable Rowles deposed that when he arrested the accused he kicked more like a horse than a man ; in fact, it was found necessary to tie his legs. For being drunk accused was fined 5s and costs, with the option of 24 hours' hard labour; and for assaulting the constable he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.