MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 5805, 24 January 1906, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TfKSDAV, JAN FA I! V 23. (Before Dr A. MiAithar. ~,M.t Two lir-t-ofl.•inline ,i t.•v.iic convict -fi and i:.. Tj..:" s . d. For a MO,lid Olfl'MCf, Ft ■ 111 IM r. A.lf H V. .1.. Mlllil.U'iv til .ill V. 1' 11. Patfl-'t, o !{•■;;.ill, .lii.l , (;•,!. V. IK, pleaded guilty 1.i.1 net 1; I o -,<ii nj; fount cloth ,i it. I an m ,it, valued a' £O, tin, property ol' Alfred \\atkne, a a,, brought U[, for ii'.ii'eme Anii-ln ..pi -ct or D’Donovan at t nlmt,■>l ~ci n.-. d - ia|-.-e to insobriety. Dr .•!, Artimr wit* /,,! a tonvicuon, and o.ib red Inm to (nine up lo' (.entente v.-laoi railed upon. !le lidviaed Jicciiwd "In let tan- v. h.as.y (done.” ■Mary Tycun in- touted pioe lings against. her I,n.l,and 'Willi. a., Kll'of Tv.soiil for aa..u,it. Tli.-ro was no jM-aranro of defendant . but on hearing l.ho evidetee oi 11:.' w i . Dr MeA;' imr oprloi-d deiendaiit to enter ufoies ov. n reel-eft irt I la I- of !:',<> la ol:-, a Vo lII.' |:i a"',' toivaiali. |ii',.ontnx bn a inad oi six toontint. civil, r.rsi.Nks.s. •I ndgment iv a a for plaint i_l f by default ill each ol f ho lollolVmg C.fJame. .-dnith and .'ion. v. Inward W. fl.tr nor. £1 i.M . A. ; Kirla aldio and Hl.ium, I,id., v. William Burnell, £A ha -hi. restof , Cd ; S. Bethel! v. Percy Abbot:. £3 -’.a, costa .’a.: Patrick I’aSion v. K. 11. (A,lln r, £3l. tosla L2 II:-; il. (1. Don and Co. v. Arthur A. Maxwell. £7 IX cost , cl UK -hi: Men a: I Timber, (Hass, and ilardivaro Ciim[i:<li.v. Ltd, v, Angm-t Li.iil.cr. £D IL-. cfi.ta All; H. Lanmi.t ami Co. v. Door:;** Andrew, jinir., lo 7. (or rotnrii ol goodsi, coots ill Oi Ud; Stewart Tniilr-r, Ghee. ami Hardware ( oinjiany. Ltd., v. ,1. Stephens. .IJW '-’a Hd. < -el . 1! 3-; name v. Daval I!. .lon-.. 11l 11s ml. roots lot; Hair. Lean' and Co. v. George Hall. IT,. -,.t. Id Ida lid; I'litinncr ami D-.vim- v. Sarah Mcl.eary, m m . 1,1. net, E. D. .lellicoe v. Arthur .1. Joblin. Id ,'h. 0,.t. A.: Celtie Publishing Company v. Kliz tb.-H. Carey. 11 17. a Cd, c-i-ta A.-: .lone, and Co. v. Alexander .McKee, Ho dal, com. A, Susan I’avno Geo,-,- A 1 iti:<il• ■. Id, costo As; Edward Aod-Vsim v. Fihvatd Ga-eoigne, 111 H- dI. com :. 2A, Cd John Marshall v. William ('. Kenneth, IK L-Js Dil. eoMs Id. lid: Laei v ami .Ltd., v. If. ,1. Wat son ami Co.. Id !'■’■ Id. eosta Ida; Wdlian. \\ ijrt; it- v. .lohr \V. Marti,,il, HI ll’s Cd, co-ta A.,; Wh 1 ~mil>o ami Tomb-, Ltd. v. di'iiry Oliver, IT 10s, cost. As: .lanm, IHI am; Vo. v. Ivo liner, 17 <l, cl .si s Id. (id : City Council v. Frank Parkin, 11 17 s lOd, cos to Am; Louisa Thomas v. .lohn Ttutgney ami Mabel Tangney, £A H ; . toc.t■ lin: Warnnek ami Adkin v. Leonaril A. Armstrong. .11 "s. coats .As; same v Patrick llrodnrick. JIM LAs 10.1, coals 15s; Rani,! v. .John U. Wainwright. ill la tld, ooittd As- Dresden J’iam, Company v. Albert Darnell:. £2l 3s Ail. Oulu £3 Ms; K. W. Mills and C„., Ltd, v. Franklin and Hashing. .13 7a Id, crxst.s )0s; saint* v. Henry (I. Stewart. £!) Mis, costs ‘J.’la (id; D. IJeiiianiin and Co. v. Chriatt)]ther Cnine. .11(1 As, costs .11 10, (id: New Zealand Farmers’ Cm operative Distributing Company v. Him Parata. Cl IKs 7d, coals 11; John Tkiward llutler, Ltd, v. Janie,, Pnrtlie. HIS Us -hi. costs .11 Jls; James .Smith and Sons v. Horace Moon. 7s Ud, coats f«; If. Cl. And,•mon and Co. v. A. J. ISussett. £3 -Is Ud, cents 1(K ; Krncst 11. .Minilie v. Charles Mills, IT Is. costs As; Is!:a.s J. Forbes v. Henry Oliver, IT. costs l(n; Marne v. T. ALuln r, £.A Am. coats 13s Cd : same v. Craharn H. Jaelv.son. IT 17s 10,1. tola 10s; same v. William Heberts. i'A A-. CS-I - Ids lid: Cußtendyl: and Focl.e v. Kiehard J. Hodgins, £SH -Is Id. costa £1 1,0 s; AVbitcombe and Tombs. Ltd, v. .Sir Charles Burdett, lAs, costs An: L. Caaelbcrg and Co. v. Benjamin C. liobbins, £23 3« lid. costs £2 Us; Wellington Traders’ Agency r. Alexander W. Smith. £2 Am, costs 10s; Milliam Alorris v. John MoKeganoy. £1 Ills, costs os: CL H. Thornton v. Kniest Priddl-. 13 Us. costs 10s: Walter K. AVoods v. William Donaldson, £7 Us Ad, coats i 23s fkl: AVilliam and John Delaney v. Agnes AleXally, £2 Us Id. costs 10s: aamo v. Helen Cole. £1 Is. costs As: Bust and Sons v. Charles Pye. £1 os. roils As; Klias J. Forbes v. Charles A. Rhodes, £-1 15s, costs 10s : Rouse, Hurrcll ami Co. v. .Tames Scarlett, £A3. ixtsts £3 10a ; Universal Supply Company, Ltd, v. Alary O’Connor. £1 10s. costs 0s: Agnes Benron v. Wat tie Alartin, £lO 11s 3d, rests £2 G, 0,1; Matthew Babich v. William Jehu Obo'dlitone. £0 1A«. com ft 23s Cd : J. Speight and Co. r. Peter Hartshorn. £Ol (is 2d. costa £-1 2,; T. and M*. Anting v. Joe On Lee, £1 13 s (costs oiil-'• S. Luke! and Co. v. George Bowatcr, £1 10s, costs ICte. ! In the judgment summons case K. Asbmoro v. C. Oberg, a debt of £3 Om. defendant wn.> ordered to pay forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment; warrant to be suspended .as long ns (5s per week is paid. In the case J. U. Storr v. J. Toft (13 Ss), debtor wn» ordered to pay forthwith, tho alternative Icing seven days’ imprisonment; warrant to bo suspended till tho Cth prox. J. H. Storr aluo received judgment against F. Toft for 18a, defendant being ordered to pay forthwith, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment; warrant to ho suspended til! January 30th. J7o orders were made in tho following cases:—J. R. Burley v. C. Johnston (£2 4s lid) and F. Harrison v. J. Denis (£3 7»). In tho case Ellen Richards v. Frank Manning, a claim for possession and £2 15s rent, judgment was for defendant, witbodt costs. DEFENDED CASES. David John McDonald brought an action against James It. Patterson, indent agent, for tho recovery of £2O. being tho amount alleged to he due for livo weeks’ salary, from October 14th to November 18th, IDOA, for services rendered ns a traveller in the Canterbury district. Mr Morlsun, instructed by .Mr Lcvvcy, for the defonce, contended that plaintiff had an interest in the line for which he was travelling, and if there was a claim SJto parties canto to a settlement before tho caso commenced. Judgment was for defendant, with costa (£2 IK). Plaintiff was represented by .Mr Blair. In the case New Zealand Express Company, Ltd. (Mr .Stout), v. Professor Andrews, ol tho Magic Kettle Company— a claim for the recovery of £0 3s lOd, for work done and charges paid—judgment was entered for plainttff, with costs (£A 10s). Evidence in this case was taken in Auckland and other parts of the colony. A Hansen and Co, grwers. Adelaide wxmd, proceeded against William and Alary Ann Chilian for the recovery of £6 19s 3d for groceries supplied. "The debt was confessed by .Mrs Caihin. but her son (tho other party to tho action), represented by Mr Wilford. defended I the case, judgment going against! plaintiffs;, with costs (£1 Is). Judgment waa for plaintiff. with eosts (£3 3si) in the notion E. fS. Jelli j coo (represented by Mr P. J. O’Regan) v. William Edward Timmings, a debt of £TO. 1