MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13926, 11 June 1907, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, Juxf. 10, (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowaon, S.IL)

Judjnienl w»3 givta (or plaintiffs, by arfr-ult. in tlio following cases;—Lochhcad (Ltd.) v. John Wilkinson and Jcssio WilkinFoi. Uinlenui), clsiui £2 Cs, balance for n, (■c-.vlng machine, judgment for XI 63 and ••osts (lGs). Uullmc, Bowron. and Co. v. 'J'hcodorc Ralfo (Hokitika), claim £)4s 3d on i> dishonoured promissory note, coßte 2i3 ud. The Phoenix Company v. William Smith (Grcymouth), claim £1 ]8s 3d for goods, coda 8... Hordern and Whi-to v. Jessie Carling (Livingslono), olaim £6 balance for a carl; judgment for £3 and costs (3<3 0d). K. J. Thomson v. Joscpli Harvey (Mount Ploasanl, Knitangata), claim £12 13s (tf for gowls, costs 33s Gd. Alexander Docherty v. Patrick Lewis (Alexandra Soulli), claim X 8 IBs for semco3, costs 23s Gel. Stiechim and Co. v. Anctrcw G<w (Wellington), clnim £33 for stout supplied, and on a dishonoured prmniesory nole, costs £2 U&. Goorge Esther v. Georg? J C. Smart, tlaira £12 Is on r diehonoured promissory -note; cents 16s. MolliEon Ltd. v. Hiram Holmes OVctberatones), claim £2 5s 6d balance due for goode; costs Us. Dr&pery Importing Company v. Joseph D. Hall, claim £5 2s lid Jor goods, costs Ks Gd. Gilbert Thomson v. Alfred Keates, claim £2 10s for wnges; costs Wfl. Julia Scbolten v John Toner (Christchurch), claim £20 lor money lent and interest; costs £2 Ca.

H. Hutohings v. Jno. Doughee (Brockville). — Claim £6 for two cows. Mr Wilkinson unbared {or plaintiff, ahd Mr Hay for defendant.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for £3 (paid into court) and costs (10s). Defendant was allowed 28s costs.

George C. Mooro v. Walter Smart (Wellington).—Claim £17 10s or possession of a bicycle and two banjoes.—Mr Macassey appeared for plaintiff, and Itr Emslie for defondanl—Mr Matas-ey said that plaintiff was in 19GG secretary of ibe Wellington. Club, and on leaving had plsced in the cue of one John Johnston, a ptevmrd at the club, a bicycle and two bxnjoc3. Plaintiff heard froru another steward that Johnston had pawned 'the goods to a pawnbroker named Smart, defendant in the present .-ictiou. Smart was wrii'on to, and a<l fiTst, nicde no T<?l'ly, but later said lie had purchase! the (-■owls from Johnston anil had again sold them. He could not find Johnston, and could not supply the names of the purchasers of the B°ods, and a summons was finally issued agnitift him.—ifr Emalie submitted that plaintiff should be nonsuited, because it had not been shown to the court that defendant Wis the person who had possession of the. articles i\t the present time. Defendant rK(J done no wong-ful aot either in buying or selling the goods. Then it had not been conclusively proved that that l!:o goods defendant took into his possession were the goods plaintiff had originally owned, and which ho liad left in cliarge of r man named Johnston, nor oould it bo said that the. articles which might havo Ittcn in the pos?c?9ion ot defendant wero the identical articles plaintiff left villi Johnston.—His Worship intiinated be would give judgment on Monday. Dunedin Operative Koolmakers , Union 'of ■Workers v. l>avid Crombie.—Claim £1 4s 6d ■for fi'ibsorintions and fines.—Mr Sourr ap]warcl for plaintiffs— Dcfoiulant statad Ui«tho hnd lw«n charged for two periods of three months when bo whs out of work, nnd ex]>rc."pc!l his willingnosK to pay hi' 3 subscriptions. He, however, objected to being overcharged.—Judgment wa9 given for the plaintiiis for 18s and ,cosls (Gs).