MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 616, 31 January 1916, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

i TO-DAY'S CASES. I Mr il. \V. Rishop, P.M.. presided over, .'i sifting of the Magistrate's Court this I morning. DRI'NKKNNKSS. One male first offender, for drunken ness, \v;is fined 5/-, or in default 2! hours' imprisonment. Daisy ('lark, :i second offender, was lined in/-, or in default 4S hours' imprisonment. Throe other lirst offenders were each convicted and discharged. A SOLDIER'S LAPSE. Another first offender, a soldier, was 'charged with being found drunk in ' River Road, New Brighton. Mr Bishop: What is this man* Senior-Sergeant Mathieson: tie is > ! down on leave from Trentham. I Mr Bishop (to accused): Haven't you better regard for your uniform, and the I other men, than to get drunk like thi*.'! The accused explained that lie had; ! been led astray by another man, who I asked him to have a drink out of a 'bottle. He was ifrunk before he knew I : where he was. Mr Bishop: You are convicted and | | discharged. Now, don 't you come here again. VAGRANCY. Alexander Eceles was charged with | 'being a rogue and a vagabond, in that I he was found by night on January 29, i without lawful excuse, in the enclosed yard of Richard Harrison, at No. 12 ! Chaplain Street. Martin Carroll, alias! George Ernest Dixon, alias Matthews,! appeared on a similar charge. Both | the accused pleaded guilty. Senior-Sergeant Mathieson said that at ]o.;io p.m. on Saturday Mr Harrison I was aroused, and on going out found: both the accused in his yard. Carroll . had a very bad record. Eceles said he was invited to meet ' Harrison to go into partnership with him. Mr Bishop: What partnership* Eceles: The bottling trade. Mr Y'ou can't make me believe that you were to discuss a matter of partnership at that time of night. However, you are both convicted and discharged. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff by default,; with costs, was given in each of the \ following cases: —Taylor Publishing Co. v. Frederick Chapman, £1 5/-; W. 11. Tisdall, Ltd., v. C. Blake, £lO 2/6; Hay! ward Bros, and Co. v. Tucker and Kite, j £9 16/3; J. Ballantyne and Co. v. John; A. Tuft, £4 13/-; E. D. Kesteven v. D. J. Gordon, £l4 10/-; W. Pattinson v.: G. R. Culv-erhouse, £3 'A/11', International Harvester Co. v. A. E. Irving, £22 5/-; Dalgetv and Co. v. James Ellery, £:? 9/: i.

CLAIM FOR PILLAGED GOODS. Bing Harris apd Co. (Mr Acland) sued the New Zealand Bailway Department (Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C.) for £5 17/6 in respect of goods pillaged. It was submitted by the plaintiff firm that the New Zealand IXilway Department was responsible for the goods. Mr Acland said that on December 11, 1914, a case of goods valued at £5 17/6 was landed at Lytteltou from the skip Star of New Zealand. The goods were railed to Ohristchureh, ami, when delivered to the plaintiff firm, certain articles were found to have been pillaged to the extent of the amount in the claim. A clean receipt for the goods had been given by the tally clerk to the shipping company. Mr Raymond submitted that the clean receipt given by the railway was given in the ordinary way by the tally clerk. He could prove to the hilt that the goods had been pillaged on board the Star of New Zealand. The goods in the case consisted of a number of packages, and it was afterwards found that some of these were empty, but the tally clerk, who was unable in these cases to make a close examiuatir | gave a clean receipt. Evidence was given by the tally clerk and by .lames Mathieson, goods agent at Christchurch. The latter, who was stationed at Lytteltou at the time of the pillaging, said that the goods could not possibly have been stolen from the truck on the wharf, as there were so; many people about, and the truck was covered. Detective Martin Carney, of Wellington, formerly of Lytteltou, said he arrested a man named William Henry Smith on December 26, 1914, on a charge of stealing a number of goods from the Star of New Zealand. The accused said that at first lie found the goods under the wharf, but afterwards ml- j nutted stealing them. Mr Bishop said that the evidence; pointed to the fact that the goods were, stolen on board the ship, and he could | not agree with Mr Acland's contention \ that the onus was on the Railway De-i partment. Judgment would be given! for the defeudant, with costs.

CLAIM FOR DRAPERY. The Drapery Importing Company, Limited (Mr Fryer), sued Philip Messervey (Mr Hunt) for £1 17/;! for goods ordered in April, 1914, and delivered on May 14. . , The defendant submitted that lie never gave any order for the goods. 11 is wife gave the order. He told the plaintiff firm's traveller not to leave any goods. The defendant's wife said that the traveller came to her house when her husband was away. Witness told the traveller not to leave any goods, as they eould.not be paid for. The traveller said that witness's husband need know nothing about the goods. Witness then agrord to accept the goods in her name, but on condition that the money was to be paid in instalments. Witness gave the firm's traveller £l, and afterwards offered him 10/-, but he refused it, saying lie wanted the full amount. The Magistrate gave judgment for the defendant, with costs.