CITY POLICE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5728, 25 October 1905, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24. (Before Dr A. McArthur. S.M.)

'William Kershaw, alias Kempt home, was sentenced to one months imprisonment lor obtaining board to tho value of To from John Henry Pagni, by means of false pretences. Hubert Prust. alias Priest, ])leaded guilty to stealing one overcoat, valued at .£5, the property of .Arthur Carkcek. and one hand-bag and contents, valued at T2, the properly of Wm. Hailey. Accused was remanded 101 sentence till the 30th inst.

John Mciver was fined <£3, in default one nionthV. imprisonment for using threatening behaviour in a public place on October 32th. CIVIL BUSINESS.

Judgment was for plaintiff in each of the following cases Edward Anderson v, Benjamin C. Bobbins, ATS IGs. costs .£1 5s Gd; Dresden Piano Co, v, AViu. Drummond, A2O 5s 6d, costs <£2 IGs; Celtic Publishing Co. v. Margaret Fahey, .£1 17s C:l, cosus 10s; same v. Patrick Condon, 13s costs only; same v, Michael J, O’Brien. t £l 17s 6d. costs Gs; same v. Elizabeth Conuihan, <£l 37s Gd, costs 8s; samo v. Peter .£1 17s Gd, costs ss; same v. Ellon Cullinno, c£l 17s Gd, costs ss; same v. Patrick Smith, Jjl 17s Gd, costs 13s; same v. Hugh J. Mulloy, r£l 17s Gd, costs ss; W. Littlejohn and Son v. Wm. McAlister, .£3 10s, costs ss; City Council v. Thomas Joseph McCarthy, All) 18s 2d, costs 15s.

In the judgment summons case. Siclcy, MVech and Co. v. J. Moikle, a debt of ,£ll. no order was made.

> In the action John Motley Leigh, v. ( St, Clair Jouunax, judgment was for ( plaintiff for amount claimed (,£22 Uh sd), with costs AT Is. Mr Myers appeared for 5 plaintiff’, and Mr W ilford for defendant. ! BEAUXD v. LE OEOVE. Dr McArlhnr delivered his reserved . judgment in the case V. M. Hraund v. Edwin James Le Grove, a claim for ToU for non-delivery of tho transcript of an atldicss given by plaintiff at tho Town ; JIalJ in connection with tho liquidation j of the Colonial Hank. Dr McArthur said tho question was whether defendant, who contracted to supply plaintiff with a full report of an address to bo delivered by plaintiff, and who aftci wards found out that copies of his report containing what ho considered to bo libellous matter wero to bo distributed to certain persons, was bound to supply his report in pursuance of his contract. Defendant, lie thought, under , the circumstances was justified in refusing to givo plaintiff a copy of his notes. Judgment would be for defendant with costs (c£2 10s). Mr Gray appeared for plaintiff’, and Mr Morison for defendimt‘ CLAIM FOE COACH HIRE. Peters and Son. coach-proprietors, Lower Xlutt, proceeded against His Majesty the iCliig for tho recovery of <£lo2 12s 6d. The statement of claim set out that on October 12th, 1904, tho railway lino between Ngahauranga and Polone was so damaged in places by storm it was rendered unfit for traffic, which had to be suspended. In consequence the Minister for Railways, through his Traffic Manager, engaged plaintiffs to put their coaches on the road to carry passengers between the two towns, pending repairs to the line. Plaintiffs, at groat inconvenience did as requested; tho Minister agreeing to v pay a reasonable sum for tho service and to compensate plaintiffs for any damage that might occur. In consequence of the severity of the weather and the dangerous ctnte of tho roads, plaintiffs’ vehicles were considerably knocked about and damaged. The claim was made up as follows: 400 passengers at 2s. <£4o; extra wages to drivers and conductors. .£1 2s Gd; damage to plant, «£SI 10s —fflC-2 12s Gd. His Worship reserved decision for a week. A BETTING TRANSACTION. John George Wilkes, butcher, Porirua, sued Joe Windley for the recovery of <£lß lie, cash lent. Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr Wilford, said he was going to New Plymouth with a horse named Reclaimer. Defendant, who had borrowed from witness on several occasions, wished to ."back” tho horse for <£2, and witness told him to do this through Ross, a bookmaker. Defendant said he owed money to Ross, and did not wish to go to him. Thereupon witness told defendant to write to Ross, tolling him he (witness) would be responsible. Defendant had written, but instead of putting j£2 on the horse, he put.on <£lß. Ross billed witness for the amount, which he paid in order that his credit .might not be impaired. Witness had not received ono shilling back from Windley and he instituted these proceedings. Defendant, represcnted*by Mr Weston, said he owed c£B of the amount, which ho had twice offered to pay. The balance of the .£lB ho had put on the horso for plaintiff and another person at plaintiff's request. In cross-examination he admitted owing money to bookmakers. Mr-Weston asked .for a non-suit on tho ground that the transaction was a gaming one. Hie Worship reserved his decision for a week.