RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 533, 29 April 1882, Page 21

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, April 20. (Before Mr E. Hardcastle, R.M.) Maintenance. —Thomas Ford, who had, on the previous day, expressed his willingness to be bound over to contribute towards the support of his two children, who were then committed to the Burnham Industrial School, appeared on summons, and was ordered to contribute 5s per week for each child. Civil Cases. —ln the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs :—J. T. Steele v. K. Hanuay, £37 16s lGd, judgment summons; defendant, who did not appear, but had offered to pay 5s per week, was ordered to pay £1 per week, in default one month’s imprisonment. Wi Southee v. C. E. Belcher, judgment summons, £8 8s lid ; ordered to pay 5s per week, or fourteen days’ imprisonment. Lukent v. Liardet, £2 18s lOd. Judgments—-His Worship delivered judgments in the following cases, which had been heard at previous sittings : Smith v. National Bank, claim £93 11s Bd. His Worship delivered judgment as follows In this easel think the acts of Mr Hamilton were of such a nature as to bind the Bank through him as its agent. But as to the major part of the £92 11s 8d claimed, the plaintiff simply says he does not know anything. As to the three items only does he give any attempt at evidence, and as to the first two—viz., an alleged deficiency of £lO in a cheque of £39 10s 6d, and of £8 3s 6d in a cheque of £44 6s Bd, he merely gives a vague general opinion without particulars. This is contradicted by Mr Hamilton for the defence, and on it I think plaintiff must ’fail. The third item is a cheque for £3 10s 9d, debited to his account. Plaintiff gives little evidence about this, but Mr Hamilton, on cross-exami-nation, admits that it was paid unsigned, that plaintiff had practically wtthdrawn his authority to sign, and that he had signed it for the plaintiff since this action began. Judgment for plaintiff for £3 10s 9d and costs. Keep v. Orr.—An interpleader summons by W. R. Waters against the executing creditor. His Worship gave judgment as follows : In this case the interpleader claimant sets up that the goods were his by sale from the judgment debtor. In support he produces an alleged sale note, which does not purport to sell to him, but to “ hand over for sale by Messrs Croskery, Hasell, and Co,, and after deducting their claim, to forward balance to me as arranged.” I think that under this the execution still remained as far as Mr Waters is concerned, the owner. Whether it denotes that he had pledged the goods to Messrs Croskery, Hasell, and Co., is not in issue now, and need not be decided. Judgment for execution creditor. Mr Stafford gave notice of appeal, Wilkins v. Hibberd.—Plaintiff claimed £lO for interest arising on the purchase of a section of' land. The point raised by Mr E. Shaw For the defence was that the amouut had accrued since defendant’s bankruptcy, and on account of property which vested in the trustee absolutely, immediately on the act of bankruptcy. No notice of bankruptcy had been put in for the defence. His Worship thought that defendant never, owed the money, and the interest in the contract had passed by law into the hands of his trustees when he became a bankrupt, and from that time his liability ceased. Judgment for defendant without costs.

A Copyright Case. —R. D’Oyley Carte v. Cimino. Plaintiff, through his agent, Mr E. T. Gillon, sought to recover the sum of £2O for unlicensed performances of the music of the “ Pirates of Penzance.” Mr Stafford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Chapman for the defendant. Mr Stafford said that if his learned friend raised no objection he would simplify the case by pressing merely for the sum of 40s as a penalty for one performance, which he thought would be sufficient to convince the public that these operas could not be performed without permission from the holders of the copyright or their representative. This course having been agreed to, the case was proceeded with. Mr Stafford put in the certificate of the Registrar under the Pine Arts Copyright Act, the appointment of Mr E. T. Gillou as agent in New Zealand for the plaintiff, and a number of other documents. , The witnesses called were a stage carpenter named Wykes, who had travelled with the Company, R. W. Cary, the defendant, and E. T. Gillon. The evidence went to show that Cary’s Company travelled through the Wanganui, Rangitikei, and Manawatu districts, giving performances of the “Pirates of Penzance” without being duly licensed. When at Patea, Mr Cary received advice from Mr Gillon that the contract between them would expire on the 15th February last, and that any extension of the term would have to be paid for in advance. On the 16 th of the same month he warned defendant, who was a member of the band of the Company, that he would hold him and all the other members of the Company

responsible for any performance that would be given after the expiration of the license ; but notwithstanding this warning, the opera mentioned was performed for a full week without any renewal having been either applied for or granted. Mr Cary, in his evidence, stated that, having paid £4OO for the right, he thought he was entitled to an extra week, especially as he required the takings to bring the children home again. He did not, however, think it judicious to mention this to members of the Company. Defendant deposed that he was aware that the license had expired, but that he was under the impression that a renewal had been obtained. He was only a member of the orchestra. As to the music he played, that was altogether a different arrangement to the copy of the opera produced in Court, but he admitted that it was substantially the same. With the permission of the Court Mr Stafford read a report taken from the “ Era,” of a similar case which had been tried at Home, and in which plaintiff had obtained judgment, to show what was the practice at Home. Mr Chapman applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that no evidence had been brought to show that his client had been the leader of the orchestra, but this was disallowed by hia Worship. Judgment was reserved.

Monday, Aerie 24. Disorderly Conduct. —Henry Miller and Edward Brown were charged with having behaved themselves in a manner calculated to provoke a breach of the peace in Abel Smithstreet on Saturday evening. From the evidence of Constable Watson, it appeared that the defendants, after leaving the "Victoria Hotel, commenced to quarrel in the street, when he took them into custody. On this charge they were fined 20s each, with the alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment. The same two men were further charged, on the information of William Poppens, licensee of the Victoria Hotel, with behaving in a disorderly manner in his licensed house, and refusing to leave when requested to do so. The charge was dismissed. A Deserter. —John Raperti, a seaman belonging to the barque Onyx, was charged with deserting his vessel on the 13th inst. The Magistrate ordered the defendant to be imprisoned for seven days, and, at the expiration of that period, to be placed on board the vessel.

Breach of By-law. —Patrick M. Morgan was charged with a breach of the harbor bylaws by not walking at the head of his horse and leading it down the Queen’s Wharf. It appeared from the evidence that the defendant was riding on his dray and refused to lead his horse when requested to do so. He was fined ss, and 9s costs. Civil Cases. —L. Levy v. P. Doile, claim 16s 9d for rates due. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.—C. H. Hunt v. P.. P. Kean, claim £33 5s 2d. Adjourned until next day.— L. Levy v. J. V. O’Neil, claim 12s 9d for rates Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. —J. H. Olliver v. J. Jackson, claim £8 12s 3d for work done. Judgment for the amouut claimed, with costs.—Thomas Maher v. R. Greenfield, claim £9. Adjourned' until the lßt of May.—S. Brown v. G. Towersey, claim £3 8s for coal supplied. Mr Forwood appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Brown for the defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with coats.