LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9496, 27 April 1894, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COO-Thursday. [Before Mr. H. W. Northcroft, S.M.J UNDEFENDED CASES.— the following Undefended cases judgment was given for plaintiffs by default:—H. Owen v. W. H. Chapman, £5 ss, costs £1 17s 6d; W. J. Cooke v. F. Dyer 10s, costs 8s; Chas. Hemus v. Win. Hay Chapman, £4 7s 6.1, costs 23s ; J. J. Craig v..). Francis, £1 lis, costs lis; James Gilmour v. Chas. Henry Drabble, £4; costs £1 ss; W. H. Pearce v. W. B. Carter, £10, costs £1 i.3s 6d ; Seegner, Langguth and Co. v. J. Fischer, £5 7s. costs £1 5s 6d ; Win. Darn ton v. Arthur Hibbs, £1 19-** lOd, costs 6* ; Archibald Wallace v. R. Cook, £2 0s Id, costs 12s. WILDMAN AND LYELL V. J. S. DUKE.— This was an action to recover £6 12s 7d for stationery supplied. Mr. Outhwaite appeared for the defendant. Evidence was given in support of the claim. The defence was that the goods had never been ordered by or supplied to defendant. It appeared to be a case in which the sou of the defendant, not the defendant himself, should have been sued. Plaintiffs were non-suited, with costs £1. James Slator v. R. Forgii:.— was a claim brought by the plaintiff, aD architect, to recover £1 Is, for work done and services rendered for preparing estimate for alteration to plaintiff's premises in Parnell. Mr. Cave appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Maliony for the defendant. The defence was that plaintiff had never been employed to do the work. The evidence was unusually prolonged. Counsel addressed the Court, and His Worship, after commenting on the evidence, nonsuited the plaintiff without costs. D. Garriock v. T. E. Todd and Wife. —This was a case brought by the plaintiff, a dressmaker, to recover £4 13fi, balance of price of a trousseau ordered by the defendants. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Beale for the defence, Dr. Lindsay wis called by Mr. Be ale, and said in her present state of health it would be impossible for her to attend the Court with safety for at least two months. On this evidence Mr. Beale applied for an ad» journment.andon the further ground that the particulars were insufficient. Mr. Burton opposed the application, as he submitted Mrs. Todd could give no material evidence, and the only question was the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the charges, and that should be determined by the evidence of professional dressmakers. He contended that the application was solely for the purposes of delay. His Worship decided that the case should proceed, and if it was found that Mrs. Todd's evidence was necessary then the case could be adjourned. Mr. Beale submitted that the particulars were insufficient to enable them to bring expere evidence as to the charges. His Worship decided to proceed with the case. David Garriock, draper, the plaintiff in the case, said the sum of £38 had been paid, but a letter to Miss Robertson, the dressmaker from defendants, stated that they were satisfied with the goods but dissatisfied with the charges. After hearing the evidence available, the further hearing of the case was adjourned for a month to procure the attendance of Mrs. Todd, if possible.

MERCER MAGISTRATE'S COURT. [Before Captain Jackson, S.M.] Constable Hobson v. Captain Lindsay. —Defendant was charged with failing to register his sawmill, in accordance with the Factory Act. Defendant contended that he did not come within the Act, as he only employed his two sons at the mill. His Worship said this was the first case of the kind brought before him, and he would reserve his decision till next court day. Discharging a Gun.— W. Tonson was charged with discharging a gun on the Great South Road, and with damaging a window in the workshop of Mr. Bennett. Constable Hobson withdrew the latter charge, as defendant had paid the damages. On the former charge he was fined £1, and costs £1 9s. Charles Vincent v. Paaske.— £30. Adjourned till next court day, the 22nd [rokeno Correspondent.]