MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1163, 15 June 1894, Page 33

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Practically no excuse was offered by the man John Harris, who was on Friday charged with the larceny of a metal watch, valued at 7s 6d, from one Charles Goodger. It appears that accused and Goodger stopped in the one house, but not in the same room. The complainant had his watch on retiring to bed, but discovered that it was missing in the morning. The article was traced by Detective Herbert, accused having disposed of it to Mr Smart, pawnbroker, for a few shillings. After evidence had been heard accused said he did not know how he obtained the watch, but he had had it in his possession. Messrs J. Kitchen and W. Gascoigne, Justices, inflicted a month's imprisonment with hard labour. A first offender, charged with. drunkenness, was fined 5s or 24 hours. Elizabeth Betts, for using abusive language towards H. T. Windhurst, for whom Mr Young appeared, was ordered to find a surety of .£lO and enter into her own recognisance of .£lO to keep the peace for three months. Charles Anderson was convicted of assaulting Robert Leville, and was fined in a nominal sum of Is, together with costs, 17s, and to enter into a recognisance to keep the peace for three months. Mr Martin, S.M., delivered judgment oa Saturday in the case in which William H. Saunders, licensee of Saunders* Hotel, Johnsonville, was charged with having refused accommodation to a traveller named Alfred J. E. Brown on Sunday, the 27th ultimo. His Worship said that the landlord had deposed that when Brown told him he had money to pay for his bed, he replied " All right; if you have money you can have a bed inside. I'll go round and let you in/' The witness Greer, who was called for the prosecution, had corroborated the landlord to some extent, stating that ho heard him say, " There is a bed inside/' The landlord went inside by the back and opened the front door for Brown, who had bythis time gone some distance, and was wallnng away from the house. The landlord's evidence was uncontradicted; it was to some extent corroborated by that of Greer, and it was admitted by Brown that the landlord said something. On these facts His Worship could not hold defendant guilty. Neither did ho think he was liable to a penalty for the conduct of his wife in refusing Brown, as undoubtedly she did, a " shakedown " in the first instance. The defendant's contention in the present case was that his wife thought that Brown wanted to got a night's lodging without payment. The defendant's wife was not called as a witness, so that he could not say that this defence was proved, but the inference she was alleged to have drawn from Brown's conduct and conversation was a reasonable one. The information was therefore dismissed. In the Magistrate's Court, on Saturday, Mr Wylie, from the o/fice of Mr Skcrrolt, moved for the attachment of certain moneys due from the Hansen Company to Anton Hansen, the late manager of the firm. The

motion was made on behalf of Messrs Truebridge, Miller and Reich, who had obtained judgment against Hansen for ,£2O and costs. Mr Martin, S.M., granted the application, and also made an order for the company to appear on Thursday to show cause why the moneys attached should not be paid to Messrs Truebridge, Miller and Reich. The case of Harold Batger, who is wellknown as an athlete, v. Mrs Moeller, occupied the attention of Mr Martin, S.M., for some time in the Magistrate's Court on Monday morning. Plaintiff's statement of claim set out that on the 12th May last he commenced an action in the Court against the defendant, in which he claimed .£IOO for damages for breach of contract, and that on May 17th the case was adjourned, on the application of the defendant, till June 4. On the 17th May the parties agreed that the claims of the plaintiff should be discontinued and compromised, and that the action should bo withdrawn, in consideration of which the defendant was to pay to the wife of the plaintiff .£25, provide lodgings for her from that date till July 17th, and pay her the sum of .£1 a .week during the same period. The defendant had, it was stated, failed to perform her part of the agreement, and the plaintiff now claimed ,£SO by way of damages. Mr W. B. Edwards appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Skerrett contended for the defence that the agreement was to be subject to Mrs Moeller's consent, and that her consent had never been given, and no deed had been signed. His Worship reserved his decision until Thursday, saying that he should find in favour of the plaintiff on the facts, but would have to consider what damages he was entitled to.