MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4488, 16 October 1901, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15. (BeforG Mr W. B. Haselden, S.M.) Mary Turner, an old offender, wag fined 10s for drunkenness- Another old. offender, Lena Sullivan, was fined ss, or twenty-four hours’, for St similar offence. Thomas Reeves was fined isJohn McCurdy and John Shanagfia-n, firemen on a vessel in the.narbour, wore -charged-with, threatening. behariour_and intent to provoke a_J) r ,e.aoh of the peace. McCurdy was also charged with unlawfully resisting bhe-polico, and John tonanaghan with unlawfully Assaulting Sergeant Cullen. On the charge of Lnreat. ening jbehaviour, McCurdy was-fined SOs, or seven days, and Shamghan sentenced to three- months’ hard labour.on the charge of. assault. ■ Alex. Lou berg, a fellow fireman, was' charged with inciting the .above accused to resist the police. He was fined £6, Or, in default, one month’s imprisonment. It appeared that the "Sergeant had gone to the assistance of the constahlo who. was attempting to arrest McCurdy, and Shapaghan, when Louberg picked, him in. the back. This threw Cullen in the gutter, and caused him to ■ receive a nasty v injuiy to the face- ' ’ Thos. Beeves was fined 7s, or-twenty, hour. hours’.,, for drunkenness...... ... ! CIVIL CASES, i Judgment by default was given In : th<a following cases': —Wellington Woollen' Company v. J. McKinley, £l2 -Us, and }£llos bd costs; same v- Samuol uonosy |jun., £ll 19s lOd, and £2 4s 6d; Wil. ilianT B-- E. Brown v. Charles -O.i -Xion-I trose, £8 14s 6d and £1 3s Cd. I In the case.of “New. Zealand Times” Company v. G. F. Richardson-, \k.ere‘ Was. po appearance ;,of '.the, defendant.; The casckhad -cen adjourned before in' order to allow inquiries -to. he. made in(regard ..t<s the defendant. . Mr. <3o.pp.er, (for the plaintiff, called evidence to show jthat the defendant" was’in possession of ■certain landed property. He' pointed ■out that the amount of the claim did not warrant-a -Supreme Court action, 1 and, therefore, the company, equip up t ■claim' against’the property refemidto. The defendant was' ordered to pay £5 ±oa (tho.full amount of the olaiin) forthwith, in default six.days’ imprisonment, such sentence to be suspended for four weeks. ! J ohn Myers v. Richard Hughes' was a claim of £5 7s Bd, in regard to a ife."' TOand for wage, under the .Shipping add Seamen’s Act. ;■ ~ The plaintiff ; shipped in the Beacon Rock af Talcufihano, Chili, gnd was discharged.at Wellington before ■> the completion of the ’eontraoty the -captain informing him that -the ship would he laid up in Wellington-for four months- ... Section 'll. .of the Shipping and Seamen's Aet of 1890 provides that liu any case r wlsere a. seaman, whenever ■engaged, is discharged in the colony before completing the full tef-m of his ’engagement, .he shall he paid the full [amount.of wage* ’due up to the date of ithe discharge. -Tn-the-present- case- deductions had been made for forfeitures, <owing to the plaintiff refusing to work land for allegedly leaving ’the ship withcut leave. In addition to sighing his 'discharge, before the ■ Shipping Master at Wellington, plaintiff -had aho : signed an account of wages as being correal, and at tbe time did ;not make any com. plaint. Judgment was given for sM 3a ,6d' and oost¥ amounting'to £1 12*.' ’ THE CASE OF A HORSE. Janies. E. Parrnan brought an action for' damages, ainounting to £l4, against Peter- Jensen the - less of a - horse condemned on account of its bad condition, which was the property of Par. man, but which' had beenused by Jon. sen 1 at the'tune it wa» condemnedlt Appears' that > Jensen, who had little : knowledge of horses, had a horse Which woe a little' too spirited' for ; him. He consequently arranged a temporary efc> ’change of the horse lor one & Parman’s, After the latter had' been in use lor some weeks it was ordered, to be destroy, ed -by the ’lnspector of. tUe Society for the Prevention,' df Cruelty to. Animals, on the certificate of V Government veto, rinary surgeon. Jensen 'ttaa also brought before the Ctonrt tahd aummioßed for cruelty in driving the horse in an unfit condition. Parman "' now summoned Jensen for the value of the horse, claim, ing that the ‘ condition of tbo horse at the time it was condemned was brought about by the work to which Jensen put it—carting heavy logs in the bod of the Hutt river. For the defence, it was claimed—-and several witnesses upheld the. statement—that the horse was worth less when Jensen received it. The S P.C.A. Inspector described the horse when ho saw it a« beinfe without a sound leg as being in a low condition and as pulling the express to which it was attached with difficulty. It was practically of no value. His Worship considered that neglect on the part of Jem sen had not been proved, and he did hot believe the work it had been called upon to do while ia the defendant’s session was responsible for its condition when condemned. Judgment, was consequently entered up for the defendant, with costs amounting to £3. 4s.