MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17040, 14 May 1923, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. ' TO-DAY’S CASES. • Before Mr H. Y. Widd aw son. S.M.) j DRUNKENNESS. Two first, offenders for drunkenness { were each tined 10s and cost*, in default twenty four hours’ imprisonment, and another liist offender, who failed to appeur. had the amount of his bail. 20s. estreated. CIVIL BUSINESS. UNDEFENDED CASES. In each of the following cases judgment, with costs, was entered for tne plaintiff M>y default: —Bing, Harris and Uo., Ltd. v. C V. Deeming, £l4 Os -3d; Heathcote County Council v. William Herbert Whykea, £4 12s Sd: Roberta and Tulloch v. George Earnshaw, £2 12s>; I>. H Brow n and Son, Ltd. r. F. D. Wilson, £lB It Id: Muling and Co., Ltd v. Ay re Bros., £1 5s Bcl ; tame v. I*'. E. Burkett and Co., .Cl 8s 5d : same r. G. \\\ Barker, £l3 Ids lid; same v. \V. A. liuriev, £lB iy* 4d; Ballin Bros., Ltd. v. V. Christie, £122 10s 8d ; same v. T. G. Stack, £3O 17s 2d ; P\ne. Gould, Guinness, Ltd. v. A. Parkin, £9 15s: same v. J. K. Jackson, £Bl 4b 6d; Duncan White v. Margaret Wyman, £29. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. J. Parkin was ordered to pay the Heathoot-e County Council the sum of £7 oe fcid forthwith, in deluult seven imprisonment No order was made in the case of P. and D. Duncan, Ltd. y. F. C. Sadler, claim for £4 Bs. No order was made in the case of •L P- Powell v. D. Boyce, of Templeton, claim for £2 12s 3d, defendant proving insufficient means. S. G. Cook was ordered to pay J. G. Hanafin £fci (te 6d forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment. A TRAINER’S FEES. Harry i Ledrich Run owes, horse trainer, of Tai Tapu (Mr H. K. ALatuuugtai) claimed Jt;t>4 trom T. J>xunton, j or t-iixistchuren, horse owner., balance or money* alleged to ho owing to piaiuun jor training and riding ucicii-uant-’s horses. Mr MacxJougali stated that the detemuuiu nan .given piaintin a receipt, j : or tiu on account, and buboetiutiHiy ij “ad altered the receipt to nnute it‘j oi piaintiuin<- plaintiff rutted in evidence that \ lie ha.u .trained .and ridden liursos for *| dtiendant- He had receivoa x-xo ;i ioi his servioes, but there was an ! amount oi £B4 atiti owing to him. I -ueienuaju wrote the receipt for .Lio. j li luejxtly slated “lieceived from .ur j xirun ton, £lo.” \NiLues6 knew no- i thing about the other statement on j the receipt —‘ being payment in tuli i inr and all obligations.” Tins ; must have been added subsequent! v. j Detenu a nt. told witness he would git 1 'some more money latei; on. Dcieudant knew tnat witness had another uian working lor him and that tins man Lad to .get hall the money.. to Mr Thomas: There had been a suggestion that witness should take u«iu- l'iaming’t %r*ma* unites, tarn j tits jiegoliatioos a»JI ittaon&b. ’ilaa* j ua.d been no .tails coi a partueritnip. i AVitneids would have ? heen c6atiafied sraib ! half the winnings earned by detfendant .s koxass.. Tinere ihndl been n® arrangements regateu lonyes, -Eyjdence J®rAtautcaff was ads© .givej *%., i VI 1 L a “ ■&*"& plainih.tber. .and Cym l>aym^ n ., , m avKlanw.. stated Tina* jrfmaiirtf tnj !bse» iaaioSz* ij.. houses b.m. am .dsdiaSte had ti-e.en jnaite .regarding paj-jnssit. Ji .the. MSBtoatitms fat it® tetoto* syst „ i Ktenamg® torniiig sstofeles had bem\ •JSHUfiteMd wrjlnsw nren34 bay* tee-prejwn-d Jo pay p).,intis n.« jm S Piarnsd to wfaisss that %s Jiad »«*iveri ootilUjg nor tOI Sue wsui of taaininc ! uutodM a i&rsat*. amS wittess :said h© | 'Xfli ** j ?*,** f*®* *0 ibini and ‘thref hM V*** Sf &mgbt iwjas a fair , . frentnnJi( r ou fiff f *‘ u *2 **“» paid to plain- . wfaSsaftes 'd-.itii.'d itoiytur; an Sr m * be "to***™-®, TKe .Magistrals *»j« tlisir* w lvot : ey«o .unaruTOity vmimg tjb* -plaintiff s ! Hitnsss.es til* tfttgjt b.v ,r.iamt,d.. th„ noi t«»irt .or jury lOo.uJd feold t.Ust fraud had l».oa p,..,.v, d lagsaiiig Tlie pyr.tieji ; fiyit jtheve ihad been no 4<wflik Antangyiuen t ix-^artiine-Soared Tile istaer l.ad a-oeptod ,±IS in settlement and the Aiagistrafe said lie eaiy no rsaso-, “ doubt .defendant's stat.em ß al Sat th resfiipt laid .’ueeu given yi fail settle merit. Judgment would be for .defendant ’.with costs.