MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9535, 6 May 1909, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

* CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, May 6. 1 (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) \ Dbunkbnnbss. — One. first offender for insobriety was fined 5s and costs, in j default twenty-four hours' imprison- i ment. Vaghancy. — Arthur James Garrett wa» charged with being a rogue and vagabond and with securing board for himself and his wife from John Cowper by false representations. Accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twentyfour hours' imprisonment. Juvenile Court. — A girl, fourteen years of age, the daughter of Indigent x parents, was committed to the Receiving Home, and an order was made against the father to provide 8s a week towards her support. Undefended Cases. — Judgment was entered by default for the plaintiffs, with costs, in the following cases: — T. S. Weston and Son (Mr Ward) v. R. J. Brunt and P. V. Sharp, claim £3 ±8s 8d; Sarah Jane Hanwell (Mr Ritchie) v. Ernest Joseph Donohue £6 6s; F. Warner (Mr Bain) y. F. A. Wren, 6s lid ; W. Thomson (Mr Bain) v. J. Aah r worth. £5 10s ; Collie' Bros, and Geddis (Mr Frazer) v. J. M. R. Jack, £36 18s 6d: Craddock, Orr and Co. v. Samuel Smith, £2 15s. * Judgment Summons. — A. Coleman was ' ordered to pay E. H. Hewish (Mr Rowe) £14 18s 6d, under a judgment summons, at {he rate of 5s a week, in 'default fourteen days' imprisonment. Claim Against ax Insurance Company. — Thomas Dixon (Mr Hunt) claimed £100 from the Australian Alliance Assurance . Company (Mr Harmen) on a policy of insurance over a cottage in Montreal Street that was destroyed by fire "in January. The defendant company refused to pay the insurance after the fire, on the ground that between the time the policy was 'taken out, several years ago, and the fi,ve the risk had materially changed without the company being made acquainted with the fact. Other points were raised by the defence, but they had only a contingent bearing on the legal aspect of t£e case. Evidence was given that wben the policy was taken out the cottage insured was occupied as a dwellinghouse, but subsequently both the' ownership and the tenancy of the premises changed without the company being informed.. At the time of the fire the buiWing was in th© occupation of Chinamen, who carried on the business of laundrymen there. After five witnesses for the defence had been examined Mr Hunt decided to rely solely on legal argument and called no witness, as it was conceded by both parties that the action rested mainly on the question as to whether any legal obligation rested with the plaintiff to give notice of changes in the character of the occupancy of the insured premises. Counsel having addressed the Court at considerable length the Magistrate gave judgment for the defendant company, with costs.