LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10210, 14 August 1896, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Tbumda*. IBefoie Mr. H. W. Northcroft, S.M.I Judgments for Plaintiffs. the following cases his Worship entered judgment for, the plaintiffs with costs -.—Patefson and Co. (Mr. Burton) v. T. Wallace, claim £2 14s Bd. costs 31st J. Jackman (Mr. Brassey) v, S. M. Pratt, claim £13 KJs 6tl (judgment lor £12 0s 6d), costs £2 Is -, T. aud S. Morrill mid Co. (Mr. Battley) v. W. Salt, claim £0 8s Id, costs £1 9s Gd; A. Clark ami Sous (Mr, Clayton) v E. Reardon, claim £34 His, costs £3 Is; Rnshbrook and Co. (Mr. Burton) v. H. Carter, claim £4 153 Id, costs 'lis ; MoCoakrie and Son (Mr. Cotter) v. A. E. Liuigley, claim £45 17s. Bd, costs £3 12s 6d -, J. and 13. Braduey (Mr. Battley) v. A. and M. Medley, claim £7 (judgment for £1), costs 18s; It, Mcßride (Air. Gitios) v. S. McQuay, claim £4. costs lis; 1). Dawson and others (Mr. Coleman) v. W. Wright, claim possession of tenement and £1 & tent, costs £1 14s; W.C. Dennes (Mr. Burton) v. H. P. Barber, claim i' 6, costs £1 tin Gd; A. H. (iCiiiiigcr (.Mr, Cotter) v, I). While, claim £3 14i-6il, ousts 12s; E. Litchfield v. Mrs. Forbes, claim £1 Is, costs Cs; L. L). Nathan and Co. (Mr. Burton) v. R. L. Wood, claim £8 Is, coats £1 5s (id. A. T. St. Ukoiko: v. J. Partington.— Plaintiff claimed the return of a camera, etc., with £5 damages for deteutiou.or in lieu £'2*>. Dr. Luisnluy conducted the plaintiffs cage, and Mr. Parr {instructed by Mr. Nicholson) appeared tor defendant. Counsel explained it was a question of costs. Prom the evidence of plaintiff and another witness it appeared that the plaintiff, a photographer, came to Auckland some time back and 'selected the Wind Mill as a suitable point froth which to obtain a panoramic view of the city. Mr. Partington (proprietor of the mill) agreed that plaintiff should photograph from the mill, aud to effect that object plaintiff _ left a photograph apparatus iu the building, where it remained till Friday last, as the bad weather precluded atiy photography. On Friday plaintiff made application for his property, but Mr, Partington refused to give it tip, on the grounds, plaintiff believed, of a minium dispute. Mr. Parr said the action of Mr. St. .George savoured of sharp practice. The camera wag lying at Mr. Partington's mill for nearly two mouths prior to Friday, whim the plaintiff demanded his property for tho first time. There was a disputed mining accouut between the parties, and Mr. Partington refused to hand over the camera till such account was settled. Plaintiff returned the next day with a cheque for the amount in which he considered he was indebted to counsel's client, but at the same time served a summons ou Mr. Partington for the return of the apparatus. On the follo-ving Monday Mr. Partington sent a letter to the plaintiff stating that he could have the camel a by calling for it. Iu answer to Mr. Parr, plaintiff said his reason for not calling was, that it would, in his opinion, have prejudiced the caso. Mr. Partington gave evidence, and both counsel then addressed the Bench. In giving judgment Mr. Northcroft asked were our Courts established to encourage litigation or not ? To ins mind the case was a question of feeling between the disputants. First of all they were'rood friends, and St. George was going to photograph the face of Auckland City from Partington's mill. Plaintiff left his apparatus at the mill so that he should not have the bother of carting it up every time he required it, Subsequently, however, they entered into- a mining speculation, and fell out. Plaintiff then rushed into litigation. His Worship did not, at the same time, Ray Mr. Partington was right in detaining the camera, but tho plaintiff had been hasty. It was. left to the discretion of * the Court whether costs ehonld bo allowed, and hi could not in the present case give costs. Dr. Laishley asked would an order be given for the camera. Mr. Parr said th« camera was ready for the plaintiff whenever be chose to call for it.

Alfred John Durham v. William ! VERBKEBBiNDON.-Plaintiff claimed £$ for i wages due as engineer of the p.s. le Aroha from March 1 to March 31, 1896, at the rate of £2 per week. Mr. London conducted the case, and Mr. Reed appeared for the defen« < dant. After evidence had been given by plaintiff, and W. H. Adams, shipping clerk of H.M. Customs, Mr. Reed applied for a non-suit. Mr. Lundon replied, and His Worship said h8 thought it would be better, under the circumstances, ff Mr. Lundon paid the defendant's solicitor's fee, and then furnished an amended statement of claim, the case to be heard at some future date to be arranged. Counsel agreed to accept His Worship suggestion. M. Hooo V. A. W. Eiiis.-The plaintiff, as administratrix in the estate of Charles Hogg, deceased, claimed £22175, as balance due of moneys received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. Mr. Reed appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Beale for defendant. The latter applied for an adjournment, on the ground that his client who resided at Kawene might wish to have evidence taken at Hold* anga. Counsel said he was expecting a communication the following day. Mr. Reed said he must oppose the application, and fell the defendant only wanted to defer tin action. Counsel also submitted that ample time had beeu given for the defendant to intimate his intention in the matter. His Worship upheld Mr, Reed, and said hi must go on with the case. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £3 Is. POLICE COURT.-Thursday. [Before Messrs. L. Ehrenfried and W. Earla J.P.'s.) _ Drunkenness. -One first offender was can* tioned and another was lined 5s with costs. Alleged Theft. — Charles Cole, alias Williams, was remanded till the 20th hist., on two charges of theft. By-laws.—William Vincent Morley, a 'bus driver, was charged on the information of Mr. T. C. Turner, Traffic Inspector, with having driven a vehicle round a street corner at other than a walking pace. The Bench imposed a fine of 5s with costs.