MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16713, 20 April 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. TO-DAY'S CABEB--Mr Wjwem Wilson- S.M.) j DRUNK IN HATiMBY PARK. This seems a disgraceful state of affairs,” said the Magistrate when a girl, nineteen years of age, who did not appear, was charged with having been found drunk in .Hagley Park yesterday. J Tho Magistrate said that inquiries should bo made as to where- accused got the drink. Sub-Inspector Simpson said that the girl told the police that two men had supplied her with whisky. Accused’;* parents wore respectable people. Accused was convicted nnd discharged. HELPLESSLY DRUNK. Archibald Sell wood, who appeared on remand on a charge of having been found helplessly druhk at Rangiora on April 11, was convicted and ordered to i pa,- 170 6d medical expenses. CIVIL BUSINESS. UNDEFENDED OASES. Judgment for the plaintiff by default with costs was given in each of the following undefended cases:—C. H. Smith v. James Harvey, £9 3s 7d ; New Zealand Suppliers Ltd. v- Cl. Mackay, £36 2s 7d; L. M. Gregory v. Donnelly. £1 5a costs only; N.Z. Farmers’ Cooperative Association I Ad. v. James Barr, £75 4s 6d ; Barnet Glass Rubber Co., Ltd. v. G. Oswell Smith, £8 3s od ; same v. Thompson Blake and Co., 1 Ad. £l6 12s 3d; same v. \V. IT. Read, £22 18s Od ; same v. AY. Robinson, £3 13s 6d : same v. Nattras and Harris Motor ( 0., Ltd.. £2 8s : same v. L. Hill and Co., £6; P. and D. Duncan. Ltd. v. A. J. Read, £ls Gs 9d ; J. C. Soanes v. Arthur Laurenson, £7 4s; Phoenix Assurance C 0... Ltd. v. T. E. Hammon, £1 costs onlvj Aulsebrook and Co., Ltd. v. Lionel Georg© Wilkinson, £l2 3s 6d : George Fairbairn v. Alexander Morns, £1 19s 8d : H aliens tein Bros., I Ad. v. ' IT- CL Behan, £6 11s od ; John J. Armagh v. Birdie A. Sutherwood, £3 7s: j Turnbull and Jones Ltd. v. D. Gorrie, j £l6 15s ; Roy Twyneliam v. James 1 M inch more M’Lean, £27 ; trustees of j estate of tho late Ellis Richard Don- ! aid Joseph v. John Cripps, £80: T. HBaker v. T. Hobbs, £6 10s ; Ander- : sons Ltd.v Turner nnd Gunn, £39 2s ; j Albert E. Gledhill v. A. Symes, £1 4s j 3d; Oar rick, Wedder spoon and Co. v. Johnston Bros. £9 15s Id : Gordon Hutchison and Reid v. A. Williamson, ; £2(l 2s. TENEMENT CASE. Thomas Armstrong (Mr D. E. Wank- j lyn) proceeded against John Coutts (Mr A. -1. Mollov) for possession of a tene- ! ment. An order was made for posses- ’ sion within three weeks and the payment of rent amounting to £6 6s together with costs. THE WRONG PLAINTIFF. Lazarus Wolff Balkind (Mr R. H. Livingstone), financier, of Christchurch, proceeded against Edward Harper (Air J R. Cunningham), second-hand dealer. of Christchurch, for £lO Is 3d damages. arising out of the alleged purchase and subsequent sale by defend ant of goods over which plaintiff held a bill of sale. The statement of claim set out that tlie plaintiff was tho grantee under an instrument by way of security over certain chattels and that about September 1 L 1920. the defendant purchased these chattels from Henry Charles Young, a cycle mechanic, of Christchurch, and his wife Florence Young, the grantors under the instrument. Defendant had since sold the goods and plaintiff accordingly claimed £lO Is 3d by way of damages. Mr Livingstone said that it was difficult for plaintiff to obtain evidence with regard to the sale of the goods to defendant, because the latter had since gone out of business and his books had been destroyed. There were two witnesses present when Harper paid over the money to the Youngs. However, these witnesses were vaudeville artists and were at present on tour in the North Island. It was not known where Young and his wife were. Plaintiff said lie first learnt of the sale of the goods last November. Defendant told him he had bought £3 or £4 worth of tho goods but denied having bought £l3 worth. Defendant, who was called by Mr Livingstone, said he bought £3 15s worth of goods from Young. 'To Mr Cuningliam : Young told him that there was no bill of sale over the j goods. H© could not say whether the j goods he had bought were included in the bill of sale in question. - The Magistrate said there was no j proof ns to the identity of the goods. \ and further, the grantee under the bill ! fii sale was the Citizens Loan and T>is- ; count Company, Ltd. Therefore the j company should have been plaintiff ! and not Balkind. Judgment would 1»3 given for the defendant together with |