MAGISTRATE'S COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7048, 9 February 1910, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

- TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8. (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) CRIMINAL BUSINESS. DUPING A JEWELLER. Phil Brady, alias McDonald, appeared to answer a charge of obtaining £2 from a jeweller by means of false pretences. The circumstances of the case have already been related in tho '‘Times.” Briefly, accused had represented himself aa a jockey, upon whom fox-tune had smiled, and promised still to smile. He selected a bracelet for his wife, and ordered it to be engraved, then discovered that through a stupid oversight he had run short of cash, aud borrowed £2. Brady, who had been convicted (though not recently) on a number of occasions of false pretences an<i theft, pleaded guilty. Ho urged in extenuation that he had received a telegram from his wife, asking for money, tand that he couldn't see her and the children starve, so told an untruth to get some money. Since his marriage, two years and eight months ago, h© had worked at his trade as a painter, and had not been before the court. Accused was sentenced to three month?' imprisonment. REMANDED FOB SENTENCE. To allow further inquiries to he made by the police, Arthur Edward Tanks, who pleaded guilty to stealing a bicycle lamp, the property of William Preetwood, (was remanded until the 11th.

drunkenness. Two first offenders convicted of drunkenness (and who 'did not appear) were each fined 10s, in. default 24 hours. Joseph Gibbon, convicted for the fourth time - within a month of a similar offence, was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment. CIVIL BUSINESS. DISHONOURED PROMISSORY NOTE. Written judgment -was delivered in a case in which Charles Pratt and Co. (Mr Dunn) proceeded against Hannah McAlley (Mr Levy) for the recovery of the amoirnt (£2O) of a promissory note, together with interest, 4®, thereon, drawn in their favour by the defendant. Defendant, in anticipation of her husband's bankruptcy, had drawn a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum owing by her husband to Dr Martin for medical attendance. Plaintiff was acting in the capacity of collector for Dr Martin. The promissory mot© was dishonoured, and defendant now disputed liability for the debt, on the ground of want of consideration. His Worship held that as between plaintiff and defendant no consideration existed. The argument that the fact that Dr Martin rendered service to defendant's husband amounted to a consideration might have hold had the promissory note been made in favour of the doctor, and endorsed to plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, was suing as principal paaiy, and want, of consideration had been proved. Judgment would be for the defendant, with costs, £4 4s. Security for appeal was fixed at £7 7s. (Before Mr W- R. Haeelden, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff by default was entered up in each of the following cases:—H. Oscar Hewett and Co., Ltd. v. Emma Rangi Kotua, £7, costs £1 14s 6d; same v. iWm, Chas. May and Caroline May, possession of machine and balance due for hire, £7 15s, coats £2 8s 6d; Hunt, Cottrell and Co., Ltd. v. Vincenzo 51max>, life 6d, costs ss; Robert Martin, Ltd. v. Brown, and Sherriff, 17s,' costs only; Welsbach Light Co. of Australasia v. Thos. Patton iSpratt, £ll 14s 3d, costs £1 IDs 6d; Edward Collie v. Mrs M. Ldv©, £1 7s 6d, costs 7s; Henry Savage v. H. C. £Mli £2 19s 6d, costs ,10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. No orders were made in the following judgment summons cases:—O'Kegan and Dix v. J. T. Evans, a debt of £6 13s fid; George Watson v. Mary E. Forth, «a debt of £35115; Joseph Wm. Carr v. Alexander James, a debt of £6 9s 6d. A CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM.

The greater -part of the afternoon was occupied ih the hearing of a case in which George R. and Alfred L. Davis (Mr Fell) claimed from Leonard Hardie (Mr Blair) £3-4 16s 7d, balance alleged to be due on a building contract. Judgment was reserved. LIABILITY NOT PROVED.

In » case in which Henry Savage (Mr Dix) sued Mrs C. Anderson (Mr Brandon) for the recovery of an amount (£2 8s) alleged to be due oir a set of harness, plaintiff was nonsuited. Defendant denied any knowledge of the debt.