MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10606, 31 October 1912, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHtmCH. TrnniSDAY, October- 31. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M;) Drunkenness.—Three first offenders for clvunkeiuiess wore each fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. —A statutory first offender, who was on probation from Rotoroa, was remanded, till November 9.—David Evans, alias M'Kay. a second offender, was fined 20s, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. _ . Remands®.—Thomas Francis Hiclrey (Mr A, T. Donnelly), charged with indecent assault, was remanded till November 7. Bail was allowed, in self and one surety of £IOO. Judgment by Default.—ln the following civil cases judgment with costs was given for plaintiff by default:— Beath and Co., Limited. (Mr A. 8. Taylor) v. George Palmer, £lO 2s 4d: Trade Auxiliary Co.; Limited (Mr Taylor) v. Vv. H. Whale, £1 16s 9d; J. W. M'Clintook (Mr Goodman), v.

George Perliam, £1 17s; F. King and Co. (Mr Goodman) v. Cyril Reginald Hill, 7s; Chrislchurcli City Council' v. Isabel Painter, £2 Ss 4d; flame v. James Scott, £6 7.s f)d; same v. Estate of Elizabeth Gormsall, £1 13a 9cl; samo v» Herbert John Gwatkin, £4 1-ls 3d; same v. Frederick Bloffg, £1 14s 9(1; Nicholson and Co. (Mr Flesher) v. William Edward Cook, £ll. ■ Judgmrxt Summons Case.—ln the judgment summons case of H. Williamson (Mr Goodman) v. Amos Bird (Mp M'Coimell), £3 8s 4d, after tho debtor had given evidence an order ■was made for payment at the rate of 2s (kl per week, in default four' days' imprisonment.

(Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) Architects' Commission.- —John James Collins- and Richard Daere Hanuan (Mr F. Wilding) -Schumed from John Hall (Mr Stringer, with him 'Mr Anthony) the sum of £75 ISs, aretitocts' commission, according: to the scale of the; Institute of Architects, for the preparation of plans and calling for tenders for a house which was to have been Imilt for the defendant on the Papanui Road. Counsel for plaintiffs said that defendant - came to plaintiffs' office and asked• for- particulars as to the cost of erectihg a Wine-roomed house. Bo supplied particulars as to the size of the various rooms, and plaintiffs' estimated tlie cost at £ISOO. Defendant afterwards gave plaintiffs a list of the rooms, which numbered eleven. Plaintiffs completed the plans and. called for tenders, but the lowest received was £2530. At the request of defendant, plaintiffs drew up plans for a building estimated to cost £1450. Defendant raised objections to the second plans, and went to another architect! Ho had refused to pay more than £25, on the grounds that the claim was excessive. For the

defence it was stated that there had been a definite stipulation for a maximum cost of £ISOO. Defendant would admit that the number of rooms required had been increased by two, but he ha<l„~not. "been informed regarding the very'ereat-rise in the estimated cost of" the enlarged building. Tim Magistrate held that defendant had failed to prove that any maximum hail' been definitely agreed upon. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for tlio amount claimed, with costs. •