MAGISTRATE’S COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6872, 16 July 1909, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JULY 15. POLICE CASES; (Before Mr IV. G. Riddell, S.M.) A SHOOTING AFFRAY. CHARGE AGAINST A SEAMAN. Alfred Binder was charged that on July loth, at AVellington, ho did discharge a revolver loaded with ball cartridge at Bernard Burns, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr H. F. O’Leary, on behalf of the accused, applied for a remand. He asked that bail he fixed in a moderate amount, as the charge was not really so serious as it might at first seem. Sub-Inspector Norwood said that the two men were seamen on the Putiki. Early that morning, after the accused ■ had come on board . slightly under the influence of drink, they had quarrelled, and Burns went to go on deck. Tiro accused followed him, and from a distance of about two paces fired a revolver. The bullet lodged in the deck. The Futiki was leaving Wellington the same day, but it would be back in a day or two. 1 His Worship granted a remand until Monday next, bail being allowed in the accused’s own bond of £IOO, with one surety of £IOO, or two of £25 each. DRUNKENNESS. Timothy Donovan, an habitual drunkard, with . fifty-eight previous convictions, was sent to the Pakatoa Inebriates’ Home for twelve months. One first-offender was fined 10s, and two others were fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; and one ■ other was convicted and discharged. j

■ CITIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. • His "Worship entered up judgment for the plaintiff by default in each of the following undefended cases: Reginald John Welsby v. Augustin Bernard Corrigan, £1 10s, costs 10s; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. William M. Easthope, junr.. £l6 16s, costs £1 5s 6d; Cycle and Motor Supplies, Ltd.; v. William Hendry, £7 2s 7d,

costs £1 3s 6d; City Printing Company v. Ernest Priddlo, £4 10s, costs ss. In the judgment summons case of Barber and Co. v. John Polglase, a debt of £6 15s 7d, no order was made.

DEFENDED' CASES. CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. The case in which Aubrey Houston sues Frederick Engelbert and Herbert Engelbert, trading as the Lux Light Company, for £49 Is, for commission on sales alleged to have been effected on the defendant’s behalf by tho plaintiff, was continued. Tho defendants’ case was entered on, but was not concluded, and the case was adjourned for further hearing until Saturday morning. Mr Buddie appeared for the plaintiff, and'Mr Blair for tho defendants. A BUILDING CONTRACT. Another case which has been previously before the Court was that of Alexander Bell and John Bell v. G. H, Sample, a claim for £197 10s Bd, on a building contract. The plaintiffs’ case was completed, and Mr Blair, for tho defendant, moved for a_ nonsuit. Mr 'Johnston, for the plaintiffs, replied, and his Worship then adjourned the case until Saturday. (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) AN AUCTION SALE. Two cases. John Davies v. Bertenshaw and Evenseu, and Bertenshaw and Lvenson v. John Davies, wore heard together. In the former case, the plaintiff stated that he arranged with Bertenshaw and Evensen, who are auctioneers, of Wellington, to conduct ! a sale of electroplate at Palmerston North on February 26th and 27th. On February 26th the premises were not ready for tho sale, and on February 27th Mr Bertenshaw was called away and 'no other auctioneer could bo found. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed £l6 los for expenses incurred in connectionwith the proposed sale. In the second case, Bertenshaw and, Evensen' claimed £l4 .7s from Jehu Davies. They stated that the arrangement was made for them to conduct the auction sale on February 2oth and 26th. On February 25th, the premises! were not ready for the sale and on February 26th no buyers came. The defendant undertook to pay the auc-, tioneers out-of-pocket expenses, and give them 10 per cent, commission on the proceeds of the sale. Therefore, they, claimed £9 7s expenses, also a further £5 for goods said to havo been sold by tho defendant on their behalf. Mr O’Regan appeared for Davies and Mr McGrath for Bertenshaw and Even-

Judgment was given for the defendants in the first case with costs £1 Is, and for the plaintiffs in the second for £lO 19s lOd, with costs £1 18s. CLAIM FOR WORK DONE. The contract for • additions to the Ken-town Library gave rise to an action in which Richard James Grimmett sought to recover front Herbert Henry Knight the sum of £l3 Is 4d for work done and material supplied. The defendant was contractor for the additions to the library, and he sublet the contract for bricklaying and concrete work to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had recently been involved in an action in the Supreme Court in which ho -claimed payment for his gnb-contracb under a Men, but he contended that the work for which payment was claimed in this case was outside the contract. After evidence for the plaintiff had been heard, the case was adjourned until July 20th. Mr Dunn appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr O. Beer© for the defendant. RESERVED DECISION. , s TURAKINA RABBITS. ■His Worship Dr McArthur delivered his reserved judgment in the case of John Mileei (Mr Bcere) and Joseph Ingle v. William Hurcomb (Mr Hindmarsh). The matter, which had been before the Court for a very long time, arose out of a special partnership entered into by the parties, all of whom are fishmongers, to buy the rabbits forming part of the cargo of the steamer Turakina, which caught fire. The rabbits were to be prepared for the local market, and all profits were to be equallyj divided, each partner to pay an equal share of the disbursements. Differences arose, and the matter was brought before the Court; his Worship Dr McArthur giving judgment for Milesi and

Ingle against Hurcomib for £47. Tho matter went to the Supreme Court, on appeal, which Mr Justice Sim allowed, directing his Worship to rehear the case. It was on this rehearing that his Worship now delivered his decision. The plaintiffs claimed from the defen-i dant, his Worship said, the sum of £C4 Cs 2d in respect of a verbal contract with reference to a special partnership concerning rabbits. Tho matter had jbeen ordered' by the Supreme Court to ‘be reheard, on tho ground that hid Worship had misdirected himself in reference to the evidence given concerning a statement made by the defendant in reference to a deduction concerning benzine. The Supreme Court, however, hold that his Worship had jurisdiction in dealing with the partnership between tho , parties. His Worship wished it to be understood that he was dealing with the case wholly on the evidence given at the rehearing, and totally ignored tho evidence given in the previous case. His Worship then went into the partnership accounts at length, coining to the conclusion that Ingle owes the* partnership account £49 ’Bs lid, and that Huroonib owes it £36. 11s lid; while the partnership account owes Milesi £36 Os lOd. Ingle had not appeared in the present action, so his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff Milesi, against the defendant, for £3o 11s lid, with costs £4 16s.