THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16143, 22 February 1918, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT,

CIVIL SITTINGS

The eases sot down to be heard before his ilonour Mr Justice Chapman and a common jurv are as follows: Monday February 25th. Bea-th and Co., Ltd. v Maurice Goldsborough and the "John Bull" Proprietary; Tuesday, H. W. Busch v. D. Bates. Thursday, F. W. Scarf v. A. T. Beatty: _ Friday (before a special jury), E. Scott v." AY. A. Hopkins and others. His Honour granted probates in the estates of the following deceased persons yesterday : Jas. Knight i.Mr K. ft. Williams), .Margaret Anneti (Mr Cassidv). Alice Taylor (Mr Taylor), J. A. Berry (Mr Cat-sidy) Martin Daly (Mr J. H. Williams). John Dixon (Mr Hel- ; more"). Mary Olliver (Mr Ross). Jas. W. Smith (Mr Hoban). Elizabeth Newi man (Mr Beatty), L. AV. Blunden (Mr Helmore). MAGISTERIAL. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey. J-.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender for drunkenness was fiued ss, or 24 hours' imprisonment. Harry Bowser, for a sccond olfence, was lined" 10s, or -!3 hours" imprisonment. THEFT. John Tempest Colyer. charged with the theft of a bicycle valued at £■!>. the property of I - '. Pcmbcrthy. \yas ron.icted and placed oil probation tor three months. (Before Messrs H. Quane and I'. Christian. J'.iVs.) COMMI TTED FOR SENTENCE. Harold John Edward Barilett, on a charge of stealing a motor-cycle, valued at £50, the property of L. C. Penlington pleaded guiitv, and was committed to tlie Supreme Court for sentence. CIVIL CASES. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) In each ol' the following casus judgment for the amount claimed, with costs, was entered for the plaintiff, by default:—Milner and Thompson, Ltd. v_ Mary Agnes Meikle Jacobs, £12 10s; Andersons, Ltd. v. IT. B. Turner. £-153 12s Id; Weston Bros. v. Airs X. Fowler, £9 18s 2d; James Rodger and Co. y. Frank H. \Vashbourm», £-3 titl: William Aitcheson v. Walter A\. Bishop, £<i 9s Id CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. John George Seaton, livery stable proprietor, of Christchurch (-Mr TwyneJiam), claimed from William Smith, carpenter, of Christchurch (Mr L. A. Dougall), tho sum of £16 17s,' for the stabling of a bay gelding, Chocolate Soldier, at 25s per week, from December 10th, 1911, to August 13th, 1912, the original bill being less £20 13s paid on account and proceeds of sale of harness. The defendant brought a counter-claim for £12 13s for moneys, alleged to ha" r e been lent to plaintiff, or in the alternative the sum of £37 10s for the use by plaintiff of the horse from December li)tn, 1911 till December 13tii, 19i.2, at the rate of 2-5s per week. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs, the counter-claim being disallowed. A BUILDING CLAIM. .T Hammett and Sons (Mr Cuningham) claimed £30 3s 8d from Arthur McCallum (Mr Akxjr.s) for extras done to a house built for the defendant by the plaintiffs. Defendant counterclaimed for £25 os for specified work alleged not to have been carried out satisfactorily. After hearing lengthy evidence, the Magistrate gave judgment .on the claim for £23 0s od, and on the counterclaim for McCallum for £17 2s 6d, each, carrying its own costs. CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard at Wellington, on Wednesday, a claim by George Henry Thompson" against Herbert Henry Cook for £133, commission on sales of property. Mr C. Tringham appeared for the plaintiff and Mr H. F. von Haast for the defendant. Mr Tringham said the. claim was for commission earned by plaintiff as an employee of the defendant in terms of an agreement entered into in April, 1917. The defendant Cook was a land agent, with a head office in Christchurch, and a branch office in Wellington. Cook employed plaintiff as manager of the Wellington branch at £4 a week, and 10 per cent.. on all commissions earned by the Wellington branch. Plaintiff acted as manager of the Wellington branch for about five months, and during that time three sales, which were the subject of the claim, were effected. The question in dispute was as to whether the sales were effected bv the Christchurch. or Wellington office. Plaintiff contended that the Wellington branch was substantially interested in the execution and completion of-the contracts. For the defence it. was contended that plaintiff was not instrumental in bringing about the sales. When the Court resumed after the luncheon adjournment, it was announced that the ptvrties had come to a settlement; and the case was struck out. ALLEGED LIBEL CLAIM SETTLED. The case. Charles John Ward v. "John Bull's Register" Newspaper Proprietary, a claim for £250, wa« mentioned in the Supreme at Wellington op Monday, before his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout. On behalf of the plaintiff Mr A. >W. Blair said that his client was a Government contractor who n-ade the majority ef the b"ots used bv the trooo*. Tn an issue in defendant's journal of June 16th last there appeared a paragraph to the effect that C. J. Ward, who has been making tens and thousands of pairs of military boots, made these boots on the premises o f a Gcmpn. - Defendant admitt'd. said Mi" Blair, that- this statement was not justified, and was paying a certain sum to patriotic so~iety in Wellington, along with the costs of the ease. Tn view of this plaintiff was prepared to haw* the case struck out. _ For the defendant Afr A; Dunn said it was admitted that an unfortunate error was m-d" in the pa ra.fr aoh referred to. and the newspaper desired to express rcgTot that such error was mertf>. His Honour: T am very glad the ease settled. Tt is difficult to sar, however. whether the. statement that a. man is with *> German in such a way. is libellous. T don't know whether we hav come to a state of things yet. There is a bif question of law that might be de'-ided on that "oint: however, the case has been settled, and it will be struck nut. Tt is nnderc+oed the New Zealand th« def°n<-lant is pa-ring Wpr "Relief \ssociation £23 —being the patriotic society referred to. ILLEGAL OPERATIONS. (press association telegram. - ) AUCKLAND, February 21. At the Supreme Court, Mary Rush, alias Hasle'tt, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for performing an illegal ooeration on Elsie McFarland. His Honour Mr Justice Stringer said that prisoner had been convicted on T ery clear evidence, and he was unable to find any circumstances to mitigate the offence. It had been suggestedby counsel that the severity of the punishment in these cases mijght cause a reluctance on the part of juries to convict. his was fairly evident, but if the law was too severe it should be altered. It had also been said that the immunity enjoyed by persons who submitted to L^nni° PO TL t,O, ; > shr,,l!d taken into mnZm,!, 0 d ,ha t- while life b » the punishment Z rZr»r* X y ° f Panning a n illegal operation, the maximum penalty for ,

those who submitted to an illegal operation was seven years' imprisonment. I The difference in the punishment was | due to the fact that in one ease the offence was committed tor tlie purpose of making money, and in the other, it was usually resorted to as tho result of great distraction and the fear of shame or exposure.