Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CHRISTCHURCH.

Thursday. April 25. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Drunkenness.— Sarah Wiggins and Jerry Coeklin, two second offenders, were each fined lUs and costs, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. —One female firet offender was convicted and discharged. Vagrancy.— John Hughes pleaded guilty to a charge of having been found drunk. He denied being an idle and disorderly person within the meaning of the " Police Ofiiences Act, 18Sd. The evidence of the police was to the effect that the accused had cold his boote in order to buy liquor. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the charge of vagrancy and a conviction was recorded for drunkeuness.

Theft John Thomson, aged nineteen years, and Herbert Arthur Orchard, aged twenty-three, were charged with having stolen six military walking canes, valued at 4s, the property of Henry Oakey. Orchard pleaded not guilty, but Thomson admitted the offence. The evidence disclosed the facts that tlie two accused had been passing Oakey'e shop, when Thomson took the canes. Orchard stated that he never took any canes and had not run away. Detective Gibson said that one of the canes (produced), similar to the stolen ones, had been found in Orchard's house. Each of the accused' was convicted and fined 20s and ooets, in default one month's imprisonment.'

Judgment by Default. — In the following cases judgment •with costs was given for the plaintiffs by default: — H. T7ru (Mr Graham) v. Mrs Thomas W. Pihawai, £6 9s 7d; Bowron Bros (Mr Flesher) v. Walter Fauldyig, £2 9s lid; A. G. Healing and Co. (Mr Ward) v. Reuben Hore, jun, £76 17s 8d; Beath and Co., Limited (Mr Cuningham) v. Mrs Rebecca Pritchard, £4 12s 6d ; W. Strange and Co. (Mr Flesher) v. William Hannah and Agnes Hannah, £21 7s 30d; Hallenstein Bros v. William Tennant, £2 9s 6d; Robert Geddis v. George Riseley, £20 8s 7d (execution to bo suspended for fourteen days); Christchurch "Press" Company v. R. E. Burke, £3 16s &d; John Moore Telford v. William Sutherland Adams, £1 Is. Judgment Foil Plaintiff. — Arthur Senior claimed £1 Is 5d from the Suniner Borough Council (Mr Wright) as a balance of an account for work done. The evidence for the defence was that the account had been certified as excessive, and the Council had refused to pay the amount of the claim. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for 10s (3d and costs. — Peter Campbell and Co. (Mr Upham), claimed £8 from Mrs Marsden for work done. The defendant alleged that the charge was excessive. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount, with costs.

An Point. — George Hams and Walter Ollivier (Mr Berwick) claimed £29 13s from John M. Johnston (Mr Nicolls) as damages and costs for the drawing up of a mortgage trMch had been cancelled by the defendant. Mr Beswiek said that £25 Is was claimed ac damages, as the interest lost on the money tJiat had to remain uninvested, as a result of the cancellation of the transaction. Henry Slater, solicitor, said that in May, 1906, lie was instructed by the defendant to obtain a loan. Witness saw Mr Harris, of Beswiek and Harris, and applied for a loan of £1100. That was on May 17. The matter wae to have been completed on June 1. A valuatton of the security was made, at a cost of £3 3s. A draft of the mortgage was approved by witness on May 28. Some alterations were made at Mr Johnston's suggestion. On June 1 Mr Johnston refused fo go further in the matter, and the mortgage was not completed. The defendant said that the mortgage had never been completed. He- took offence at some remarks mad& by Beawick and Harris's clerk and cancelled tEe whole matter when it was still incomplete. For the defence Mr Nioolls submitted that the plaintiffs could not claini the costs of the transaction. The bill of costs had been made from Beswiek and Harris, the solicitors for the plaintiff. As trustees they could not obtain costs. The Magistrate allowed £25 Is damages, but upheld Mr Nieoll's contention regarding the costs of the transaction. Judgment was for the piaintiff tor £25 Is and costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19070425.2.54.1

Bibliographic details

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8912, 25 April 1907, Page 3

Word Count
698

CHRISTCHURCH. Star (Christchurch), Issue 8912, 25 April 1907, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH. Star (Christchurch), Issue 8912, 25 April 1907, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert