LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9694, 14 December 1894, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings. Thursday. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.) Norton v. Teasdale.—-This was an action brought by Emily Louisa Augusta Norton John Burgess Teasdale, claiming possession of certain land, writ of injunction, etc. Mr. Baume (instructed by Mr. uresham, of Te Awamutu) appeared for the plaintitr. There was no appearance for defendant. Mrs. Norton, the plaintiff in the action, was examined, and produced the office copy of the certifiate of title to the land in dispute, of which she was the registered owner, subject to a mortgage. It was allotment 3, and parts of allotments 1 and 2, village of Te Awamutu. Copy of the lease to Teasdale was put in. It contained a covenant of insurance, which defendant had broken for the last three years, and witness had to insure. She paid 15s a year for three years. Defendant had removed certain fruit trees, and had broken his covenant in not keeping the place in repair, and she estimated the damage irrespective of deterioration, at £12, but she did not claim for the trees, nor so much as she ought to have done, as defendant was in a bad position. He was not in occupation at present, but as he refused to give up possession, she had to bring this action in consequence. She claimed £21 rent at £6 10s a quarter. She had judgment in the Magistrate's Court for two quarters with 15s coats. His Honor said plaintiff having judgment in the S.M. Court for two quarters rent she could not get a second judgment for it here. She was only entitled to one quarter's rent, and for use and occupation since, in all £13. Witness went on to say that she claimed £7 for removal of a dwelling-house of four rooms which defendant pulled down, and although she claimed only £7 it ought to have been £20. Notice was served on defendant by witness of her intention to re-enter on the 4th September, but he refused to give her possession, saying he did not acknowledge her as the rightful owner, as he had no* leased the property from To His Honor : Defendant had never paid any rent to witness since the property was made over to her, but she had sued him for rent in the Magistrate's Court, and obtained judgment. There were two actions. He confessed judgment in one, and did not appear in the other. If witness did not get immediate possession, defendant would further damage the property, for he had threatened to pull down all the buildings. His Honor gave judgment for £6 10s rent, £3 breach of covenant, £7 for removal of building, and £6 103 use and occupation, also for immediate possession, with costs on the lowest scale. Divorce. Rules Absolute.—ln the divorce case, Corbett v. Corbett, a husband's petition for divorce on the grounds of the wife's adultery, Dr. Laishley appeared, and applied that the decree nisi already granted be made absolute. The papers were in order, and the decree was made absolute. In the case, Kempthorne v. Kempthorne, which was a similar one, the decree nisi granted was, on the motion of Mr. Campbell, made absolute.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Thursday. [Before Mr. H. W. Nortbcroft, S.M.] Undefended Gases.—ln the following undefended cases judgment was given for plaintiff with costs :—Waitemata County Couneil v Robert M. Heighton, claim £3 3s 9d and eosts £1 7s ; J. and M. A. McLaughlin v. Alice Muir, claim 12s 9d and costs lis ; Chas. Hesketh, v. M. A. McElroy, claim 5s 9d and costs £1 2s ; Chas. Hesketh v. Olivia Downie, claim £4 2s 4d and costs £1 2s; Bush and Kennedy v. Hy. Eades, claim £110s, and costs 18s; Ashley and Sony. Louis Stott, claim £3, and costs £1 lis: Gilmore, Younghusb&nd, and Co. v. A. Glark, claim £9 6s, and costs £1 5s 6d: James Wiseman and Son v. George P. Kitchen, claim £24 8s 4d, and costs £3 is; Haucock and Co. v. Miss Crawford, claim £27, and costs £1 10s; Paterson and Co. v. William McConnell, claim £3 14s id, and costs 19s; Haucock and Co. v. G YV. Prictor, claim £5 2s, and costs £1 5s 6d; Thomas Button v. William Banks, claim £1 14s 6d, and costs 6s; Sargood, Son, and Ewen v. Win. Brady, claim £20 Is Bd, and costs £3 4s; W. B. Meldrum v. W. McMillan, claim £1 6s, and costs 7a. A«kl, Dykes, and Co. v. Cooke and Cooke.—Claim £1 4s. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Baume (instructed by Mr. Gittos) for the defendants. The Amount claimed was for printing. The defendants filed a counter claim for £1 Is, being the amount for which it was agreed between the plaintiffs and defendants that the latter, under the style of the Mercantie Debt Collecting and Trade Protection Association, should rentier certain services as agents of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that they had given verbal instructions to defendants' agent that it was their intention to withdraw from the association. Judgment was deferred.

POLICE COURT.—Thursday; [Before Messrs. W. C. Walker and J. L. Tole, J.£.'s] Drunkenness.—Maria Lysaght was fined 5s and costs, or in default 24 hours'imprisonment with hard labour. For a fourth offence within six months, Norah Williams was sentenced to three months' hard labour. Alleged Theft.—An elderly man named Alfred George Weippert, was charged on remand that on the 3rd December, 1894, he did commit theft by having received moneys, to wit, the sum of £310s on terms requiring him to account for the same to Ellen Rose Mooney._ Mr. Brassey appeared for the prosecution, the accused being undefended. A of witnesses gave evidence as to having paid the accused certain sums of money for work done by Mrs. Mooney. The latter, in her evidence, stated that the accused was her son-in-law, and had been employed by her as collector. He was supposed to pay all moneys over to her, and had no authority whatever to retain any sums collected. She had made application to the accused for the amount in question, and he had declined to pay her. She had on some occasions told the accused to keep money for the business. This was to pay debts. The orders were printed at the accused's suggestion. He had E. B. Mooney and Co. put on them. This was done to look big. The Bench did not consider the case a fit one to send to a higher Court, and accordingly dismissed the accused.