MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 4565, 17 January 1902, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY, JAN FA 11Y 16. (Before Air \V. U. Hasoldon, S.AI.) A respectable-looking man was charged with drunkenness. As he was in a very agitated condition he was ordered to come up again next day. James Edwards, another man whose actions were evidently preying on his mind, was charged with tho theft of a waistcoat. Ho was remanded to the 22nd for medical treatment if necessary. CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment by default, was given in the following cases:—Commercial Agency v. T, Bollock, £1 Is and 5s AVliitcouibe and Tombs v. Percy C. Frasi, £6 10s 7d and 9s costs; Commercial Agency v. 1). Campbell, £5 9s 6s and £1 8s 6d costs; Okarito Five-mile Gold Dredging Company v. John R. Abram, £7 16s 5d and £1 3s Gd costs; same v. Jane Thompson. £lO 7s and £1 10s 6d costs; Commercial Agency v. R. G. Warncs, £2 9.s (id and 10s costs ; same v. T. Longley, £5 13s Is and £1 3s Gd costs; C. AI. Banks v. Hyde and Boyd, £l7 10s 2d and £1 10s 6d costs; AV. Feist and Co. v. Thomas Baker, £1 (is 9d and 5s costs; F. Simoon v. Charles Simnionds. 18s and 6s costs; Ruby Crock Gold Dredging Company v. Aug. E. Watkins, £lO and 8s costs; Peter Burke v. John Sliow.strand, £3 and 7s costs; Commercial Agency v. T. Blaudford, £G 18s lid and £1 u.s Gd costs; same v. J. Harrison, £1 4s and 5s costs; Scotland Company v. William Coleman, £45 11s and £1 3s costs; same v. Charles F. Cook, £lB os lid and 15s costs; Universal Supply Company v. Thomas Thompson. £9 i7s Gd and 18s Gd costs; R. Reilly v. Charles Dnnstan, £1 10s and 6s costs.

William McPhco, a middle-aged man, had been employed some two years age by William Wiggins, at the rate of 22s (id a week. On a Thursday lie was arrested for theft, and received a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. Two Justices had endeavoured to obtain the money which AicPhec claimed, _ but were unsuccessful, as was AicPhec himself on regaining his liberty. He now sued his employer for 13s Id. Judgment was given for the employer.

In tho case of J. Goodwin v. Louis W. Ludwig, a claim of £2 12s, for cabinetmaking work done, judgment was given for £2 and 6s costs., The defendant urged that the work was unsatisfactory, and during the luncheon adjournment Air Haseldcn visited Ludwig’s promises and inspected it, with the above result. A sum of £9B 17s was involved in a dispute between J. H. Palmer v. J. Harper, over a building contract in Hankcy street. After some argument,. Air Wilford for the plaintiff and Mr Travers for the defendant, the ease was adjourned to January 23th in order to allow further particulars to be obtained. Costs amounting to £4 17s were allowed.

Tho Public Trustee claimed £2 11s 'from J. Mundlc, tho amount of a judgment summons. There being no appearance of defendant, nor any cause of absence shown, ho was ordered to pay the amount claimed forthwith, or in default three days’ imprisonment, the latter order to bo suspended if 5s a week be paid. Final evidence was taken in the case of Williams v. Moffatt, 'a claim of £2 14s, for wages and value of effects, the plaintiff being a sailor on tho steamer Maori and the defendant the master of that vessel. Williams bad been imprisoned on a police charge, and the captain, finding AVilliams and bis effects gone, regarded him as a deserter, and treated him as such, and deducted tho cost of a substitute from Williams’s wages. Williams denied that bo had taken his effects from the ship. Air Hindmarsh, for tho "plaintiff, claimed that his client was entitled to his wages up to the time of arrest, and that tho captain had no power to forfeit a man’s wages, as the penal clauses in the Act took awav the civil remedy. Air Myers, for tho defendant, claimed that the captain fairly presumed that the man had deserted, baring found both tho man and his effects gone. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs amounting to £2 9s.