SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7504, 11 September 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

■:'■ ♦ ; • ■ LAW NOTICES. Friday, Sept. 12. His Honor Mr Justice Denniston will sit 'in Chambers at eleven o'clock to-morrow, when the following cases will be taken:— Berry and others v. Ba-rnby and another. A 'motion for judgment (Mr Dougall). Little and another v. Palairet and another. A motion for originating summons (Mr Cotterfll). . Re Jane H. Morrow, deceased. A motion for letters of administration (Mr Joynt). Rs C. A. Bobbins, deceased. To consider report (Mr Dougall). Re Mary Ann Wraigiht, . deceased. Motion for probate (Mr" Slater). • Ra Euphtmia Clifford, deoeased. A motion for probate (Mr Dougall). ■ Ra ' Thomas Bell's compensation, claim. A motion to delegate powers. Re Companies Act and Craig's freehold. Summons to 'fix hearing (Mr Flesher). •; IN BANKRUPTCY. \ Re J. B. Mackenzie. Application for discbarge (Mr Johnston). ;. MAGISTERIAL CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, Sept. 11. (Before Mr N. K. Bowden, J.P., Mr S. S. Blackburne, Jit*., and Mr J. T. Beresford, J.P.) " False Pretences. — John Spain, a man with several aliases, pleaded guilty ;> a charge of having on- Sept. 10,< at Christtilrarch, obtained from one T&otmas Armstrong, by means of a valueless cheque for £55, a coat valued at 255. It was shown that the accused entered Mr Armstrong's premises and asked for a coat, tendering in payment a cheque for £5. He left the shop without waiting to get change, and it was subsequently found that as he had no banking account the cheque was Valueless. He was sentenced to three m-ontias imprisonment. Affh.iatiox.-~ G. A. Nelson pleaded guilty to a charge of having failed to provide for his illegitimate child. On the application of Sub-Inspector jJßlack, he was remanded till Tuesday, to be dealt with by t(he Stipendiary Magistrate. Prohibition Order —On his own application" a prohibition order was granted! against a man, to take effect in Christchurdi and surrounding districts for twelve months. (Before ; Mr R. Beetham, S.M.) Civil; CASE.'-In the case of Edwaid Perkins v. J. T. P. Morgan, a claim for £1, the defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiff by default for the amount claimed, with costs. A Reserved Judgment.— The judgment of Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., was read in the case of M' Alpine v. Cooke, a claim for £19 18s for certain goods alleged to have been supplied 'by the plaintiff to th.c defendant in accordance with the latter s written order. The judgment stated that the order set out the contract between the parties and provided that the goods were to be forwarded by rail and boat and to be accompanied -by an invoice or delivery note. The plaintiff took the goods to Lyttelton and there handed them to the master of the Wakatu, without passing them through the ordinary channels or otherwise taking the usual precautions. On 'the evidence it could not.be said that even the verbal instructions given to the master were such as to make, up for other omissions. Moreover, there could be very little doubt that, the packages were not properly addressed. The evidence on that point was fairly conclusive. Section 34, Sub-section 2, of the Sale of Goods Act set out the obligation cast upon the seller, and it Was quite clear that in this case the obligation had not been fulfilled. Judgment -would be for the defendant, with costs. A Contract Claim. — Hement Bros. (Mr Russell) sued H. G. Sheppard (Mr Francis) for the sum of £88 10s 7d. The claim was for work alleged to have been done by the plaintiffs in a house that the defendant was having built in Gloucester Street. The plaintiffs had completed their contract and done a lot of extra work in the house, and the architect had certified to its having' been properly carried out. The defendant admitted his liability for most of- the work carried put under* the contract, but objected to several alleged overcharges and to many of the extras claimed for, the amount . actually in dispute being £20 17s 4d. Each item was gone through separately, and numerous witnesses were tailed. The defendant put in a counter-claim for £3 18s 4d for damage said to have been done by the plaintiffs to the building and for omissions in the work they had undertaken. Judgment was given ifor the plaintiffs on the claim and on the counter-claim. It was pointed out that the plaintiffs had, since taking action, received a cheque for £69 from the defendant, and. his Worship therefore decided to allow costs on the sum of £20 17s 4d. . A Question }of Ownership. — Henry Hight (Mr Russell) sued Henry Kennett, sen. (Mr Harman), for the sum of £15. The claim was for the value of a gum tree alleged 1 to have been cut down by the defendant's son on the plaintiff's land. The tree was valued at £10, and the plaintiu claimed a further £5 as damages. The action was hot disputed, but the defendant claimed that the tree was on his own land. As a matter of fact, it was on a sort of boundary fence between the properties of the parties. The contention therefore centred on the point of ownership. Mr Beetham, after hearing the evidence of a surveyor who had 1 made an inspection of the dividing fence,' said that a proper survey should be made. The case was therefore adjourned for a week.