LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12669, 24 September 1904, Page 7

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S ' COURT. J Mr. C. O. KETTLE, 8.M., presided over Friday's sitting of the Magistrate's Court. A Judgment Summons: Charles Henry Treadgokl, represented by Mr. Baxter, applied for an order upon a judgment summons amounting to £110s lid against Robert Wilson. As the debtor did not appear the magistrate ordered him to pay the amount due within 14 days, or, in default, to serve 43 hours' imprisonment. An Undefended Case: Judgment for plaintiff with costs was given by default in the case of Charles Bland v. Orlando Wells lUisborne) for £30 12s. Judgment for the Defendant: Joseph Francis Osborne, represented by Mr. Burton, claimed £37 4s from Alexander McAuley, who was defended by Mr. McGregor. Mr. Burton explained that the case win a counterclaim to a case which had been confessed a week ago. The case made out for the plnintin was that McAnley in November last purchased the Awanui Hotel from H. Subritzsky, a brother-in-law of William Whittingham, through whom the negotiations were conducted. Whittingham was to get fivij per cent, commission upon the sale, which was for £650, the total commission thus being £32 10s. When Mr. Noil McLeod, a brother-in-law of MoAuloy's, entered as licensee, lie ordered goods amounting to, £4 14s from the plaintiff, who, first of all, ' charged them to MeLecd and then to MeAuley. As soon as the evidence was heard Mr. Burton made application for the joining of Whittingham as a, co-plaintiff, but, as , Mr. .McGregor objected, pointing out that' an additional plaintiff could not be allowed on what was really a counter claim, Mr. Kettle refused to allow it. Mr. McGregor said the ease for the defence would be that MoAuley was not the responsible party at all. As a matter of tact it was Mr. Neil McLeod who bought the hotel, MeAuley only conducting the negotiations, and advancing him some money. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs. A Baker's Dismissal: Edward Edwards sued Kent and Son tor £2 3s wages. It appeared from the evidence submitted by Mr. Lundon (for plaintiff) and Mr, Cotter (for the defendants) that the plaintiff was dismissed because he refused service when asked to take another man round with him upon his bread run. The plaintiff denied that he refused to work, but the magistrate held that tho weight of evidence was against, him, and he gave judgment for the defendant with costs. POLICE COURT NEWS. Messrs. G. Roberts and G. Road, J.P.'s, presided at yesterday's sitting of the Police Court. Drunkenness: Two first, offenders were fined 5s and costs for drunkenness. Margaret Wilkie, for her fourth offence within six months, was sent to gaol for a month. Breaches of By-laws: Geo. Paul was fined 5s for riding a bicycle on the footpath in Khyber Pass. Bertram Hodgson, for driving in Newmarket by night without lights, was ordered to pay the Court costs. For a similar offence John Banks was fined 5s and costs. Mate Bosich, a Grey-street tradesman, was fined 5s and costs for retailing aerated waters on it Sunday, a proceeding Which the Bench pointed out was contrary to the law. Charleii Glasson, for loitering on tho footpath in Knrangahape Road, was ordered to pay Court costs. Harry Davis was fined 5s and costs for wheeling a barrow on the footpath in Jervoia Road. A Vagrant: Marian Roach, to whom the police gave an unenviable diameter, was sent to prison for 14 day-: for being found by night without lawful excuse on certain premises. A Series of Thefts : A young man named Frank Theodore Stites was charged with * stealing a gold ring, value about £5, the property of Mrs. Now ton, wife of Lewis Newton, of College Hill, accused's employer. Stites pleaded guilty. The evidence of several witnesses showed that the ring had been stolen from Mrs. Newton's bedroom. Later the accused gave it to Miss Agnes Spencer, with whoso mother ho had gone to board. She retained it for about a fortnight, when Stites asked her to give it- back to him, as it was his mother's. She thereupon returned it to him. Maurice Copeland, manager for Mr. Mendoza, pawnbroker, Vic-toria-street, deposed to accused pledging the ring with him on September 15 for ss. Accused asked for probation. The justices remanded tho case until the afternoon, when Mr. O. C. Kettle, S.M., upon hearing the evidence, committed the accused for sentence to the Supremo Court. The same accused pleaded guilty to several thefts of moneys totalling £1 13s .6d. Sub-Inspector Black, stated tiiatiStit.es was employed by Mr. New-, ton in delivering coal and firewood, and In each case he had collected accounts and given receipts, but failed to account for the cash to his employer. Accused was remanded on these charges for the report of the probation officei. Probation Refused: James Family, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of being a party to the theft of a £4 suit; from the Waitemata Hotel, came up for sentence before Mr. O. C. Kettle, S.M. The magistrate said that he had received the probation officer's report, which was altogether unfavourable, and, as that was so, lie could cot give him the benefits of the Act. " There is a mistaken itloa abroad," said the magistrate, addressing the prisoner, " that the Probation Act applies to every first offence. That is not so. In my opinion the Probation Act does not apply to any first offence unless there has been very great temptation, such as extreme youth and poverty." The magistrate then went on to say that Family's offence was one of a most, deliberate nature. According to the probation officer Farrelly was one of those who loafed about the hotels seeing what he could get. In sentencing Farrelly to three weeks' imprisonment the ; magistrate took into consideration the fact , that he had already been in custody for a week.