MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 3957, 24 January 1900, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 23. (Before Mr W. R. Hascldcn, S.M.) policFcases, One first-offending inebriate was fined 10s, Fee disobedience to a maintenance order, John Ccurad was remanded to Danncvirko. John Rose, a fireman cn the s,s. Paparo’.;. charged with absenting himself from Ms ship without leave, was remanded to the 25th iust., when his ship is expected to be in port. John William Rickman, being a. prohibited person, was charged with'being found on licensed premises cn the Bth iust. He was fined 40s, and 7s costs. Sarah Aldridge, remanded for sentence. was discharged, grave doubts as to her guilt having arisen. , ;r . ' ■ CIVIL CASES. ' . F Ac

Judgment was given for plaintiff~hi tho following cases; —John R. Dale V, William Marriott, claim £4 IQs; E. G.i Jeilicoe v. Frederick Hiley. £23 Is 2d ; Geo. ‘Winder v, A. C. Bricknell, £9 I,os 7d; the same v. Samuel Carlson, £9 I3s 4d; Edwin Arnold y. S. Garner, £2l 5s 9d ; Diamond Confectionery Company r. R. F. Young, £lO 14s 6d ; Ruth Watson v. Cape! and another, £lB 10s (judgment against Cancl only). Defended cases:—A. G. Tnii'-c and Co. v. R. Woodman, claim £2,-for costs of-adver-tising judgment for plaintiff for £2 os. Air Neilson appeared for the defendant. ■ William Dnnrte v. A. 'B. de St. Romanic. The hearing’of this case, adjourned in order that investigation might ho made as to the .'authorship of certain specifications relating to a building contract, was resumed. Mr Menteath again appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Bunny for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that ho was prepared with an admission. The statement sworn to by Ms. client at the last sitting of the Court had, 1 been made inadvertently. The bench poini cd out that uniil this admission several - persons had lain under an implication of having committed grass and -wilfuLpeKjury. Plaintiff now came into Court and confessed In having made a slight mistake. An’explanation, ■ .supported by evidence, made by counsel; the bench decided, merely- showed that -plaintiff’s solicitors had acted with perfect propriety, which nobody doubted ‘ for a moment. The propriety or otherwise of plaintiff’s conduct was another matter, and that the bench considered should bo made the subject of other proceedings. The heaving of the civil action was then , resumed. Judgment was reserved.