MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12757, 29 September 1919, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TO DAY’S CASES, CHRISTCHURCH. (Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) A BROKEN ORDERArthur Greeks, charged with drunkenness and procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, said that a drop of whisky, the first for six months, had gone to his head. Ho was convicted and discharged T»n tho first charge and fined £2, in default seven days, on the second. REMANDED. Charges of drunkenness and indecent exposure were preferred against J. P. Griffith, who was remanded till next day, hail being allowed in one surety of £25. DRUNKENNESS. John Cunningham, a second offender, was fined 10s, ui default three days, for drunkenness in St Asaph Street. A female offender with a long list of previous convictions, who had not been m coin; for six months, was fined £1 in default forty-eight hours. ■ A first offender was fined 10s. in i default twenty-four hours. STOLEN SKINS. j William Henry Sumruorton, a youth, j pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing! 242 rabbit-skins, valued at £l9 IDs! j the property of T. Yates. The police said that accused had taken the skins' iron a shed in Worcester Street and 1 sold them to a dealer for £7. He had j spent the money prior to arrest. His I Worship ordered accused to come up I tor sentence when called on and to report^to tho probation officer once a week for two years, the value of the goods to he paid off at the rate of 15s a week. “NOT SOBER NOW.” . Wllli , an } Jennings, an old man, was charged that he was found drunk while in charge of a horse and cart- in Colombo Street on Saturday. Pohce evidence was to the effect tha. Jennings, while in a muddled condition, drove through the Square with m, h °™ and gig at a reckless pace. ihe vehicle carried no lights. Accused, in a drowsy voice: I was not drunk. His Worship, to the sub-inspector: Ho s not sober now Accused: Ain’t IP His Worship: Remanded till tomorrow morning. Accused; Thank you. undefended cases. Judgment for plaintiff by default was €ac^l following undefended cases:—James Sutherland J - £• Brown, £2 17s 6d; Havv. T. K. Taylor £2B 9s Lilly Bros. v. Raymond Taybr £l9 12s; Hastie, Bull and Pickv' am M’Donald, £5 ia v - Maurice o’Callaghan, £8 Os 6d; Tho Mutual Benefit Building and Investment Society of Canterbury (Permanent) v. Ellen Pcrrott and GilPerrott, £lO3 14s 2d; Charles S Thomas v. Elizabeth and Charles Stuart, £i 2s 3d; International Harvester Company of New Zealand, Ltd., Coleman. 9s 7d; Massey Barns Co., Ltd., v, W, A. Coldstream, £6 16s 6d; Reid and Grav, Ltd., v B Turner, £o Is 7d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Con Yeadon was ordered to pay to A. J White, Ltd. (Mr C. S. Thomas),* a debt of £7 11s 6d forthwith* in default one month’s imprisonment. PARTNERSHIP QUESTION. The question of an alleged partnership between husband and wife was involved in an action Kennedy Wylie v * Alexander E. M Pherson (Air K. Neave), a claim for £ll7 2s 3d. Mr Sim said that M’Pherson had confessed judgment for the full amount and the only question was whether Mrs M’Pherson should be deemed a party to the transaction. The defendants had a farm at the Styx and had long laboured under difficulties. In November 1916, in response to a request by the husband, plaintiff advanced them* £IOO without asking any security. Later on Wylie, on making inquiries as to the possibility of payment., was told by the husband, “It is all right. My wife will see you through.” The defence was that there was no proof whatever that Mrs ATPherson had ever had tho money or that she had ever agreed to pay it back.

Stella M’Pherson said that sho and her husband were not partners, and sho had not known anything about tho borrowed money until some time afterwards. His Worship said that judgment for the full amount claimed and costs would be given against the husband; but he would bold that the wife was not a party to the borrowing transaction.