CITY POLICE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 5229, 19 March 1904, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

FRIDAY. -vIA'KC'II 18. (Ikforo I>r McArthur, S.M.) theft. James Condon, an nnk-.'tnpt-look'ng Individual of middle ago was went to gaol for one moritli for stcalm.' a go.n chain valued at £2 10s. the property cn George Hover. Inspector hllison explained that a ecu .set! had resided at the Reef ton boardinghouse with informant. I’ov.er missed his watch and chain one ■j'tty, the former being picked,up in the dining-room a couple if days lator. Cnndon was afterwards found by Constable Rutledge endeavouring to dispose of the timin. REMANDED. Remands were granted in the following cases on the application of the police:—Mary Quinlan, charged with being an idlo and disorderly person ; Joseph S. Wilson, charged with being about to leave tho colony without making provision for tho maintenance of his unborn illegitimate iliild ; Leslie Ross, alleged theft of one tout and vest and two pairs of trousers, valued at £3, the property of John Martin ; Albert Porter, alleged theft of one uniform coat and trousers, valued' at £2, the property of Philip Wirch; Thomas Myall, charged with being an idlo and lisorderly person. BOARDING TRAINS IN MOTION.

Andrew Gilmore, who did not appear, was charged with getting on a train between Ngahaiaianga and •Wellington in motion. A statement signed by • defendant (practically an admission of guilt), was handed up to the Magistrate. Inspector Ellison remarked that no matter how much publicity was given to these matters, people still continued to nm tho risk of breaking their neoks. His Vviorsihip also commented on tho freluonoy of this class of offence, and fined iefoudant 40s and costs, 7s. WANDERING COWS.

Patrick Cavanagh, a daily farmer, refling at Kaiwarra, and .a Councillor of jlio borough of Onslow, pleaded - guilty to two informations charging him with alLowing cows to wander on tho Victoria road. Mr ICirkcaldio who prosecuted on behalf of tho Onslow borough authorities, said defendant was tho owner of some forty or fifty cows, and had repeatedly been fined for allowing his cattle to bo at largo on the public thoroughfares. .In tho majority of tho cases tho charges had boon disposed of by Justices, and defendant found that tho payment of small lines and free grazing was quite a profitable business. Ho asked for a'n exemplary penalty. Defendant was fined £1 on each charge, and ordered to pety costs amounting to £3. ! SUMMARY SEPARATION. His Worship delivered judgment in the case of Sinclair v. Sinclair, a wife's application for summary separation a'ad custody cf the children of tho marriage on tho grounds of persistent cruelty. Plaintiff (Mary Sinclair), in support of her application, alleged that her husband (George Sinclair) frequently got drunk, created disturbances in tho house, threatened to murder her and “ tho lot of them,” and caused her and tho family to leave tho house—sometimes late at night. Tho evidence as to defendant's drunkenness and the family having to leave tho house was supported by that of-tho police in tho neighbourhood. Complainant’s sister (who readied with the parties) stated that she had heard Sinclair use. vile language to his wife, and had seen him kick her. Another witness testified that defendant pushed his wife violently many times, and looked her out of doors. After defining “legal cruelty,” his Worship said defendant denied absolutely that ho had struck hb wife, but ha (the Magistrate) was of opinion that defendant’s acts had brought his conduct within the definition of “ legal oruolty.” Complainant was gralnted an .order as prayed. No maintenance, was asked for. Mr Herdman appeared for complainant. AN IDLE PERSON.

John Clancy was brought before the Magistrate in the afternoon on a charge of being an idle and disorderly person. Accused undertook to leave the town if he was given an opportunity to do so. His Worship entered a conviction, and ordered accused to come up for sentence when called on. HOUSE-BUILDING CASES.

Several judgments were delivered in connection with tho litigation over tho erection of a house for Roland Bates, at Karon. In the case William Morris v. R. Bates, plaintiff claimed under the Contractors’ and Workmen’s Lien Act, 1892, to recover from defendant tho sum of £157 4s 9d, being tho balance owing by the defendant to plaintiff in respect of tho erection of a five-roomed house and outbuildings by plaintiff for defendant on land near the Karofi tunnel. Bates counter-claimed for £270 2s 6d, which included a number of liens, £65 penalty, and £l2O concerning an agreement to take over certain lands mentioned in the contract. The main, question involved was whether the contract which required the contractor to payment of £l5O, part of contract price of £4OO, by transfer.of certain equities of redemption, should stand. His Worship sot tho contract aside on the ground that tho contract had not been read to Morris, although signed by him, and had boon afterwards withheld from him. Judgment was given for plaintiff for tho amount claimed, less £45 general damages claimed for breach of contract, and less tho amounts of his subcontractors’ liens. Tho counter-claim of defendant was disallowed. The amount of tho judgment for Morris, for whom Mr Dunn appeared, was £SB 9s 3d, with £6 8s jcf.t'S. Mr Tanner appeared for Bates. His Worship also delivered judgment in favour of tho subcontractors against R. Bates and William Morris, as follows:—F. A. Dryden, plumber, £ll 15s sd, costs £2 9s: j. Jacobs, painter, £33, tests £4 ICs: G. C. Morris, carpenter, EG. costs £1 19s: G. Coo, carpenter, £3, costs £1 15s. Mr Dunn appeared for raoh of the subcontractors and Mr Tanner for defendant. . • There was another notion by C. C. Odlin, timber merchant, against ; B. Bates, far the recovery of £153 4s 3d, for timber supplied by plaintiff for the erection of tho same “house. Plaintiff, for whom Mr Myers appeared, brought the action under tho Contractors’ and Workmen’s Lion Act, 1892, and claimed a lien for tho above-mentioned sum upon the land of defendant on which tho work was done. In tho course of his judgment his Worship remarked: —“l am not going to attempt to follow tho peculiar proroedings which. in my opinion, took place in this particular class of transaction. They arc beyond me, and, if necessary, the parties aggrieved may have their remedy in a higher Court.” After dismissing a nonsuit point, raised by counsel for the defence,, the Magistrate continued : “As for the so-called defence, all I can say is that, in my opinion, there seems to have been some arrangement between the defendant and others, whereby hp might defeat the claims of

those who are building the house in question.” Judgment was for plaintiff for tho full amount claimed, and cotes (£l2 7s). An application for tho salo of the house by Mr Myers was adjourned, owing to tho absence of counsel for the defence.