THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17120, 15 April 1921, Page 5

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL V THURSDAY. (Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) DBUNXENNESS. Emily Foster, a second offender, was convicted ant? ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. Defendant wa« also prohiKited, the Magistrate cautioning her that if she appeared again ah© might be sent to Pakatoa. CIVIL BUSINESS. In each of the following cases judgment, with costs, was entered for the plaintiff by delault;—National Harvester Co. of New Zealand v. Alexander and Bichard Dick, £* 8s lid; James Savage v. James Stewart, £32 11a 6d; C. G. Sheridan v. John Butler, £lB 11a 6d; Andersons, Ltd. t. Thomas K. Taylor, costs only, 18s; Bristol Piano Co., Ltd. v. Ernest James Fantham, £24 4s 9d; Tuck's, Ltd. v. George Ccx, £l3 19s 6d; K. More and Co. v. M." Murphy, 15s; Panama, County v. Vivian James Adlam, £3 6s lid; same v. Elizabeth Bebecca Kavanagh, 16s; Cyclone Woven Wire Fence Co., Ltd. v. H. C. D. Jarvis, £3 IBs 6d; Norman McKenzie v. Edward Chivers, 8s; Matthew Stoddart Brown'v. Arthur Seymour Trower and Daisy Madeline Bunows Trower, £l7 10»; F. E. Longdin v. Evelyn Henry, £6 15s. No order was made in Andrew Lees, Ltd. (Mr J. R. Cuningham) v. J. Parker (Mr F. D. Sargent), claim £42 12s Id. W. G. McDowell was ordered to pay Angus-Donaldson (Mr B. Beattie), the sum of £lB 5s 6d at the rate of 10s a month, in default two months' imprisonment. Albert Lanedown, of Christchurch, carrier (Mr B. A. Cuthbert) proceeded against William Stewart, of Kaiapoi, horse-dealer (Mr W. F. Tracy) claiming £3 lis 6d, the difference between the amount of purchase money paid to defendant for a horse, and the amount realised on the sale and feed of same. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant warranted the horse to be fit and sound, whereas it wa3 not so. Plainijff offered to return the horse to defendant ior the return of the deposit money, £7, but defendant refused. Plaintiff therefore sold the horse at publio auction fpr the sum of £2 2s (id. After hearing i evidenoe the Magistrate found\<for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. (Before Mr V. G. Day, SJM.) MONEYLENDERS IN COURT. Lazarus Wolfe Balkind (Mr J. B. Cuningham) sued G. H. Stockdale, 92 Cashel street, Christchurch, agent (Mr T. W. Rowe), claiming possession of a piano or £26 in case possession could not be had 3 and the sum of £lO damages for retention. In the alternative plaintiff claimed £36 for wrongful conversion of the said piano.. In his statement of claim plaintiff said he was the holder of a registered bill of sale, No. 724, dated January sth, 1920, given by Ellen Barton to him to secure moneys over certain chattels, including l a piano. On October 15th, 1920, the defendant obtained possession, and caused the piano to be taken to an auction room, where it was sold for £ls. On November 19th defendant again had possession of the piano, and sold it for £26. Mr Howe said the action was the outcome of a peculiar set of circumstances. A Mrs Barton, during her lifetime, and without the knowledge of her husband, had borrowed money from two money-lenders, the plaintiff and a Mr Emanuel, and given them the same security. She had also got an advance of £GO from the defendant,. purporting to give him the piano for sale. She took ill and di«id a' few months later. Emanuel and Stockdale then rendered their claims to the deceased's husband, who knew nothing whatever about them, and claimed the piano aa his property. Eventually the piano waß sold on behalf of Stockdale and Emanuel, realising £ls. Balkind then stepped in and lodged his claim. After hearing evidence at come length the Magistrate entered judgment for the plaintiff for £26, as he had the prior bill of sale. IN OTHER PLACES. COURT OF. APPEAL. (PRESS ASSOCIATION' TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, April 14. The Court of Appeal this morning heard an appeal by Quill, Morris, and Co., Ltd., of Christchurch, the defendants in the Supremo Court, against the judgment of Mr Justice Herdman in favour of respondents, William Henry Grantlcy Gorton and Cecil George McKcllar, both of Christchurch, and James Cecil Palmer, of Kaikoura. Judgment in the Supreme Court was given in a special case stated, by the consent of the parties. The as set out in the special case were that the appellant company was, on February '2sth, 1916, holding from, respondents a lease expiring in 1922 of the Shades Hotel. Bev spondents alleged that on February 22nd, 1918, appellants and respondents entered into agreement that the rent of the hotel should be reduced by £325 a year. The reduction was made under the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1917, and was to last during the term of the lease or during the. continuance of the war and for six months afterwards, whichever period was shorter. According to a proclamation issued by the Governor-Gen-eral the war was deemed to have ended in New Zealand on January 10th, 1920. Respondents demanded the original rent from that date, but the appellant company claimed that it was entitled to the benefits of the reduction. Mr Justice Herdman. gave judcrmerit for respondents. . Mr Skorrett, K.C., for the appellnats, contended that the writings alleged to constitute an agreement for the reduction of the rent did v not constitute such an agreement, but that* the respondents had submitted a coun-

ter offer to appellants and that the appellants had accepted such counter offer by their conduct. He furtier contended that' whatever duration of award was mad© under the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1918, that must be the duration of the agreement for reduction of rent. ■ Mr Gresson, for respondents, contended: (1) That the agreement for the reduction of rent had been entered into, and that the duration of the period of the reduction of thai rent had expired in July, 1920. (2) That in any case any award made under the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act, 1918, could only subsist for. the duration of the war and for six months thereafter. The Court reserved its decision.