LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8775, 15 January 1892, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday, [Before Mr. 11. W. Bishop, R.M.] Undefended Cases.—ln each of the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiff : —J. and M. McLaughlin v. S. Pascoe, claim £1 12s 3d, costs 9s ; McArthur and Co. v. William Innes Craig, claim £29 2s 7d, costs £3 13s ; C. E. Button v. Henry Langdon, claim £2, costs 9s ; C. G. Hill and Co. v. John Ryan, claim £9 5a 9d, costs £1 5s ; Cook and Gray v. William Mclndoe, claim £3 9s, costs 6s ; Thomas Steadman and Co. v. Ah Moy, claim £3 Os 9d, costs 7a ; Thomas Steadman and Co. v. J. W. Wrightson, claim £3 12s Bd, costs 9s ; H. Bond v J. Ross, claim £3, costs 19s 6d ; W. E. Giles v. Frank Stanley, claim £3 18s lOd, costs 7s; Thomas Steadman and Co. v. W. Way, claim £1 8« 4d, costs 10s ; Alexander Croskery v. C. A. Garrett, claim £5 ss, costs 10 ; Ann Hewitt v. Frank Montague, claim £2, costs 6s ; Walsh and Co. v. Jane Halliday, claim £4, costs £1 3s 6d ; G. P. Cox and Son v. Edward Fail, claim £4 6s, costs £[ 8s ; G. P. Cox and Son v. Thomas Asher, claim 14s 6d, costs 17s 6d ; Arch hill Road Board v. J. P. Jones, claim 2s 6d, costs 7s ; Archhill Road Board v. owner of lot 36, part 16, section 7, suburbs of Auckland, claim 6s 3d, costs 7s ; Archhill Road Board v. E. 11. Hunt, claim 15s, costs 7s ; Archhill Road Board v. Charles Clayton, claim £1 12u 6d, costs 7s; Waitemata County Council v. Ignatius M. Gee, claim £4 Is 2d, costs 13s. Joseph Eh km an v. John McDonald.— This was a claim for £12, being cash lent to the defendant, for which ho gave plaintiff an acknowledgment. Mr. W. M. Neumegen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Cooper for the defendant. Joseph EhrmanandC. O. Smirden gave evidence for the plaintiff. Mr. Cooper contended that tho agreement could not be received in evidence inasmuch as it was not stamped at the time it was signed. Plaintiff could not sue on an unstamped promissory note. The defendant then gave evidence to the effect that the amount claimed hud boon deducted from his wages, and that he did not therefore owe the money. The plaintiff was non-suited, with costs £1 Is. Hayek and Co. v. James Hill.—This was a claim for £3 14s yd, for meat supplied. Mr. Whitaker appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. E. liaume for the do fondant. The plaintiff stated that tho goods had been supplied to a Mr. Case, who was now dead, and that the defendant had guaranteed to pay for them. The promise was not given in writing. On a previous occasion defendant had paid for goods supplied to Mr. Case. Thomas Evans gave evidence as to the agreement between Case and Hill, whereby tho latter was to pay for the troods. Mr. Baume contended that the plaintiff's case must fail, as there was no agreement in writing as required by the Statute of Frauds. Mr. Whitaker contended that Mr. Hill was liable, as the original debtor, had accepted the liability by having paid on a certain occasion. The Bench thought that Ilill had led the plaint iff to believe that he would pay, but still the case came within the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, and the plaintiff must be non-suited. No costs were allowed. James Bkvedoe v. Margaret Mohan.— The plaintiff claimed the sum of £3 12s 4d, for goods supplied and rent due. The rent was £2 10s, and tho goods supplied were valued at £1 2s 4d. Tho defendant admitted that she owed £2 10s. Judgment was given for £2 10s, with costs 6s. POLICE COURT.Thursday. [Before Messrs. M. Nieeul and S. Y. Collins, J.P.'s] Drunkenness.—One first offender was lined f>s and costs, or in default 24 hours' imprison Damage to Property.—Mary alias Myra Grant, was charged that on January 13 she did wilfully and maliciously break four panes of glass valued at ss, the property of Catherine Hard wick. Accused pleaded guilty to the charge. Accused also pleaded guilty to a charge of using obscene language in Uriscoll's Lane. Sergeant-Major I'ratt stated that both charges related to one occasion. Tho Bench fined accused 10s, on the first charge, and ordered her to pay the cost of the damage, or in default 14 days' imprisonment. On the charge of using ob'cene language accused was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.