LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12447, 22 January 1904, Page 7

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Mis" IT. W. Bkabant,' S.M., held a sitting of the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Judgment for plaintiff by default with casts was given in each of' tin: following cases:—John Roid and Co. (Mr. Battley) v. C J. Greenwood, £11; William Craig (Mr. McGregor) v. Mrs. Robert Hall, £31 15s 2d; John Sehisohka (Mr. Armstrong) v. Robert Glenworth, £5 8s 9d ; G. Hodgson (Mr. Burton) v. A. It. W. Scott, £29 lis lid; the Great Northern Brewery Company (Mr. Biss) v. H. Subriky, £129 9s 2d; Whittome, Stevenson, and Co., Ltd. (Mr. Mo Veagh) v. ,1. N. Jacob, costs only, 13s; Herbert Thompson and Co, (Mr. Smith) v. Eugene H. Aubiu, £40 9s 6d ; the Union Backing Co., Ltd. (Mr. Colbeek) v. E. Aubin and Co., £11 os 10d; same v. Mrs. C. Best, £8 Is; W. and U. Tumbull and Co. (Mr. Alexander) v. Thomas L. Sanlbrey, £'6S 2s 7d; John Chambers and Son. Lid. (Mr. MoVeagh), v. The Wheel of Fortune, Ltd.. £?2 7s Oil; William Man a ban (Mr. Baxter) v. Louisa Edith Barron, £4 4s; Fell and Cameron (Mr. Baxter) v. James Percy Gaft'ey, £8 15s 9d ; James Fiytm (Mr. Armstrong) v. Mrs. James MoKeown, Us, 2d; Ernest Colon (Mr. Burton) v. M. Bond, £10 ; W. Sands (Mr. Baxter) v. James Hunter, £3 10s id: Donald and Edenborough (Mr. Baxter) v. R. J. Janson, £3 17s lid; Fred Webley (Mr. Williamson) v. 'George Burnett, £5 ■ George McKlwain v. J. Harris, £6 2s Id ; the Union king Company, Ltd. (Mr. Blair) v. Mr. Wiidenv, £9 10sj Heather, Robcrtou, and Co. (Mr. Blair) v. G. Walsh, £51 10s; W. Sands (Mr. Baxter) v. W. J. Greenwood, £6; Auckland Co-operative Boot and Shoe Company, Ltd. (Mr. Smith) v E. Tait, £2 3s 3d; "Austin Walsh and Co., Ltd. (Mr. Smith) v. Alfred 11. Sadd, £3 12s 6d; Herbert Thompson and Co. (Mr. Smith) v. H. M. Gilbertson, £1 lis 4d ; T. Raster (Mr. Smith), v. L. Scorringe, £.1 ss; Frank Wilson (Mi. Smith) v. James Caddy Davies, £5 ss; Arthur J. Watkins (Mr. Smith) v. D. S. Cattanaeh, £10 10s 3d; John Rauken Reed (Mr. Cotter) v. Joseph Gardiner, £50 14s; M. Murchio (Mr. Burton) v. D. S. Cattanaeh, £5 7s; Andrew Eriekson (Mr. Baxter) v. Alfred Rhodes, £4 2s 6d; and Walter Hodgson v. T. G. Bowden, 17s Bd.

Judgment for plaintiff with costs was given in the case of: G. Richardson and Co. (Mr. Baxter), v. S. J. Brown, £4- 12s 7d.

Claim on a Dress: Mr. John Court, for whom .ur. Burton appeared, claimed £2 17s 4d against Mrs. Reos, foi a dress supplied. Mr. A. Blair, who appeared for the defendant, stated at the commencement that his defence was that the dresa did not fit. He had applied to tho plaintiff's counsel (Mr. Burton), to allow the defendant to try the dross on in r-ho presence of independent dressmakers, but his learned friend had re fused to allow this, and so had seriously prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of her case. In asking fev an adjournment, he would request His Worship not to hear tho case until the dress had been tried on. Counsel for the plaintiff said, in reply, that it was usual in such cases for defendant to put the dress on in the witness' waiting-, room, and then come into the Court and show it to expert- witnesses. Mr. Blair objecting to that procedure on the grounds of it being too great an ordeal for his client, Mr. Burton then suggested that the dress should be tried on in Mr. Court's shop before several experts. His Worship intimated that lie could only hear tho caso in the ordinary way, and that he could not make any sppcial order for the trying on of the dress. The case was finally adjourned until this morning.

Plaintiff Nonsuited: Messrs. Ward and Company Ltd., of Christohurch, claimed i : 15s from R. Montgomery for goods ordered and supplied on October 17, 1900. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiffs, while Mr. Blah offended. The effect of the evidence in support of the claim, which was heard in Christchurch and Paeroa. was that the goods had been supplied to defendant at Waikin< on October 17, 1900. by the plaintiff company. Accounts had since been rendered from time to time, and no denial of the debt had ever received. Defendant, in his evidence, denied having received any beer from the plaintiff company on the date that they said h» did. but ha stated that he received a similar quantity on the same date from another firm. The last order given to plaintiff company was in 1893. when his late father, W. S. Montgomery, was license- 5 . His Worship said that ho was fully convinced that the defendant had received the b<*er consigned by the company. It was impossible to suppose that an exact, quantity of beer ordered by defendant from another firm had been supplied on the same date. Defendant could easily have ascertained the correctness of that by referring to his bocks. There seemed to be a strong doubt as to who was the person who ordered the beer, and who was to nay for it. He did nor, think that he could order the defendant, to pay for it a? it seemed more than likely that itwas his father's debt, although delivery had been proved. Plaintiffs would therefore be nonsuited.

Claim for Money Lent: A claim for £16 5? 2d for money lent was made by Douglas Kent against Robert and May Cecilia Eaton. Mr. Burton conducted the case on behalf of the plaintiff, while Mr. J. R. Lund on appeared for defendants. In stating the facts for the plaintiff, Mr. Burton said that on May 1 last Mr. Eaton obtained a loan for £10 from the plaintiff, giving a six months' bill of sale over his furniture and a niano. On September 1 Mrs. Eaton borrowed £5 from the plaintiff, when she gave another bill of sal© over the same security. Tf, was, counsel stated, represented to plaintiff that there was more than sufficient security for the loan in the piano, but he afterwards found out that the piano was not defendants', being in their house only upon the hirepurchase system. Plaintiff put the rest of the property included in the bill of sale up a; auction, but he only realised £0 15s lOd gross and £1 2s lOd net after deducting law costs and cartage. Plaintiff therefore claimed against both defendants a balance of £16 5s 2d and costs. Rent, who described himself as an agent, stated that when he was making up the bill of sale' he came across the piano. He asked defendants if it was theirs, and for answer was told '"Yes" by Mr. Eaten. His only reason for selling up the defendants was because they had moved the furniture without giving him notice. Cross-examined, plaintiff denied that he had been told by the defendants, when making up the bill of sale, that tho piano was not theirs. Ho admitted that although his first loan to Mr. Eaton had only been £10. he had taken a bill of sale from him for £11 16s. Ho further admitted that the sum of £2 12s had beer paid on account, and that apart from defendants not giving notice of removal they had complied with all conditions. He had not given any notice to defendants as to where their goods had been taken after seizure, nor as to whether they had be-on sold or what he had received for them. Nei- ; ther had he made any demand for payment J of the balance before taking the Court proceedings. He had admitted to Mrs. Eaton

that as far as Mr. Eaton was concerned he had no claim against him. His Worship, in striking Mi. Eaton's name out of the caso, adjourned the further hearing until this morning.

Judgment for Defendant: In the case of Henry Clayton v. Charles Franer, claim for 15s rent, His Worship gave judgment for defends.,t, with costs. In doing so, Mr. Brabant said that ho did not think plaintiff was entitled to a week's rent because only three days' notice had been given, since it was not proved that it was arranged that a week's notice should be given on either side.

POjlj.CE COURT NEWS. Yesterday's sitting of the Police Court was held before Messrs. .7. Alexiindei and .1 '/iiman, justices of the peace. Sub-Inspector Black represented the police.

Drunkenness: A first offender for drunkenness, on pleading guilty, was convicted and discharged. Robert E. Biiitficy, a fifth offender, was fined £2, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Taking a Mope: A young man named Cecil Windsor was charged on two informations with stealing 2611> of rope, the property of the Auckland Harbour Board. Mr. Clayton, who appeared foi the accused, stated that his client would admit the facts, which were that he took the rope from the Calliope Dock for the purpose of using it ii- his yacht close by, intending to return it. Their Worships said that they would only inflict a fine, as it seemed Windsor bore a good character. lie would, therefore, be mulcted in the sum <>! £5. By-law Cases; Charles Peek and Philip Wolfson were each fined Is and costs for having ridden their' bicycles upon th© Vie toria Wharf, Devonport. A fine of £ and costs was imposed upon Joseph Powell, who pleaded guilty to a charge of having exposed goods for sale in Karangahape Road while abutting the footpath. Boy Charged with Assault: Frederick ?tlackay, 13 years of age, was charged with having assaulted another boy named Sydney Rhodes Speight and his brother on the lott inst. Mr. Reed conducted the prosecution, while Mr. McGregor defended. Counsel for the complainants, in his opening remarks, stated that the complainants were always being subjected to continual annoyance from the defendant, who practically "'bullied" them. His clients had been attending the Ponsonby school some tim. ago, but in consequence of the continual assault? which they had been subjected to by the defendant, they had to leave there and go elsewhere. On Saturday fast, while the two boys in question were landing from a boat at Ponsonby, obey were sot upon by the defendant, whv pushed the elder boy into the

water, and hammered the other. Mr. Reed called evidence to support his statements. The boys admitted in cross-examination that they had often throw*' stones at the defendant, that they had called him names on many occasions, and that they had thrown thing.* at defendant and another boy while the latter were bathing on Wednesday, the I.sth. The case for the defence was that Maokay had only committed the assault lx>cause of the provocation he had been (riven on tin- Wednesday prior. The Bench said that whila they considered it was not a very serious affair, yet they thought the boy ought to be bound ovpf. He would bo ordered to find u surety of £5 to keep the peac& for the next tr.'elve months. .