LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10048, 7 February 1896, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Thursday.

[Uofore Mr. 11. W. Nortiicroft, S.M.J

Judgment Summonses. — Judgment with costs was given for plaintiffs in the following independent cases George Foster v, (}. Mcßeath Hay, £5 Is, costs £1 83 Gd ; R. and W. llellaby v. 11. L. P. Tucker. 18s, costs 6s; Cook and Gray v. A. B. Ci>ckburn, £17s, costs 8s; Cook and Gray v. C. Joliuson, lis 9d; Cook and Gray v. G. H. Donaldson, £2 2s 2d Gilmorc, Younghusband aud Company v. Houldsworth Bros., £4 lis Bd, costs, lis; Rushbiooli and Company v. R. \V. Brown, £2 2s ss, costs £1 ss; Lewis Moses v. Charles Rogers, £32 13s, costs £3 Is; Hospital and Charitable Aid Board v. Joseph Ellis, £3, costs Gs; Sargood, Son, and Eweu v. A. McCready. £50, costs £3 15s ; William B. Meldrum v, Frank Hill, £4 ss, costs £1 ISs 9d; Gilmore, Younglmsbaad, and Co, v. Charles J. Saunders, £11 7s lid, costs £1 15s Gd; William Monaghan v. Alfred R. Greenway, £25, easts £13 Is. Mini.no Shakes.— was a case in which Messrs. Ruddock and Walker, sharebrokers, etc., sued Alexander Heaney for the recovery of the sum of £5 due to the firm by defendant for a quarter-share in the Golden Spark G.M.,Co.,Coromandel. Mr. Ruddock's evidence showed that the defendant, Alex. Hcaney, had applied to his firm for a quarter share in the above-mentioned couipauy, and had presented a promissory note for £5 in payment, but 011 tho cheque being subsequently posted for payment it had been dishonoured. The firm now sought to recover tho monetary value of the worthless cheque, the £5 for tho shares in question having been paid by them to tho company on behalf of Mr. Heanoy. The defendant contended that as his name did not appear 011 the list of shareholders, and had not been gazetted, ho was to all intents and purposes not liable for the amount. His Worship, in giving judgment for tile plaintiff, pointed out to Heaney that his name would naturally not appear on tho list as a shareholder until such timo as the money was paid over to Messrs, Ruddock and Walker, and accordingly made an order for £5, with costs Gs, upon the payment of which defendant's name will be inserted on the list of shareholders, and tho transfer haudedover to him.

POLICE COURT.—Thursday.

[Beforo Captain Harris anil Mr. R. Ilobbs, J.P.'s.]

Traffic By-Laws.—James Thomas Trueman was fined 10s with costs for having driven a cart 011 January 22nd without lights. Robert Harry lveenan pleaded guilty to having driven a vehicle round the corner of Quay and Queen-streets on January 26th, and a fine of 10s with costs los was imposed. John Twohev was charged, 011 the information of Mr. T. C. Turner, traffic inspector, with having suffered his hackney carriage to stand elsewhere than at the appointed stand for such vehicles. The Bench fined defendant 10s with 7s costs. Master and Apprentice.— J. C. Parr appeared in support of an information against a boy named Henry John Elliott, who was charged with having from January 27 to February 3 absented himself from the service of his employer George Alexander Coles without leave, and that he did during the said poriod refuse to servo the said Coles, although under indentures to him. There was 110 appearance of the boy. Mr. Parr stated that his client was a bootmakor, and had been put to some inconvenienco by the defendants conduct. He had left Mr. Coles' employ shortly after the holidays, and had nob returned since. Counsel asked that the boy might be ordored to return to work, and that he might also be ordered to pay to Mr. Coles the expense incurred owing to his absence. An order was made that Elliott , should return to work forthwith, and pay the sum of £1 4s compensation, with costs £1 7s, or in default sorve one month's imprisonment,.