Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. ('Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) DKUXKKXXKSS. A first offender waa fined 3s, in default 21 hours' imprisonment. VAGRANCY. William John Owens, on a charge of being an idle and disorderly person, in that he cor.Fortod with thieves and prostitutes, was prohibitc.l and sentenced to ono month's imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. In cach of the following cases judgment for the amount claimed. with costs was entered for the plaintiff by default Charlotte Ton-ens v. 'William H. Poninghaus, £9 Ss; Garrick, Cowliehaw, Alpers, and Nieholls v. O. l'\ J. McKee, !M 1-s; William Go3.s, Ltd., v. John Sunderland. XI 3s C>d; Christchurch Nursery Co. v. AYil.liam Madden, 23; James Irvine v. J. P. McCormick, £2 10s; C. Goedcn v. Mrs 11. P. Nelson, !)s; same v. Mrs Giddens. costs only, Ss; Mason, Struthcra and Co., Ltd., v. John K. Iloneybone, £1 0s Id: samo v. Frank Washbourne, X'l 2o :kl; A. Morrison v. W. George, £5; Bertha Sherwin v. Carl Bersamini, £3 3a; Massey, Harris Co., Ltd., v. Stewart Hyburn, £55 2s 3d; earn© v. W. G. Ecnwiek, jCC» 7s <id; Temploton Bros. v. Louis G. Murphy. £6 13-s sd: Canterbury Bakers' Union v. James Harding, £3 3a Gd; same v. K. Main, £5 15s; same v. G. Wood, £5 18s; B. and I. Hales v.' F. Phillips-, £3 lis.". JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. G. A. Powell waa ordered to pay W. J. McKenzie (Mr E. B. Hill) the sum of £3 2a 2d forthwith under a judgment summons, in default 3 days' imprisonment. No order was made in the of Ellen Anderson (Mr Gee) v, Harold L. York, debt £0 Cs Gd. NONSUITED. Jacob Weeks proceeded against John Armstrong to recover £5, alleged to bo due for rent. Plaintiff produced an ancient-looking document which he alleged was an 1.0. U. from tho defendant, but the' signature could not be recognised. Plaintiff admitted that the signature had. worn off, and he had written it in again himself. He was r.onsuitcd.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19190114.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16420, 14 January 1919, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
330

THE COURTS. Press, Volume LV, Issue 16420, 14 January 1919, Page 4

THE COURTS. Press, Volume LV, Issue 16420, 14 January 1919, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert