THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17418, 31 March 1922, Page 11

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. THURSDAY. (Before Mr Wy vera Wilson, S.M.) DISMISSED. Daniel O'Connell, aged 35 years (Mr It. A. Cuthbert) was charged with having, on March 22nd, at Christchurch, stolen a bicycle valued at £5, tho property of Ernest James Jamieson. Chief-Detective A. Cameron said tho machine had been taken from the back of ani cilice in Hereford street. Complainant had •found it in a. second-hand shop. The number had been partially filed out. Comjjlaintant gave evidence of identification. Detective Sheehan said accused told him he bought the bicycle about months ago from a man named Keats, who was drunk at tho time. He had paid £3 10s for Hi? .machine. Witness could find no trace of Keata at the address given him by accused. The Magistrate said there was very slight : evidenco of identification. It would be no use sending accused before a. jury on a charge of theft. The information would be j dismissed. I ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. Tho adjourned case,' in which William > Smith Mac Gibbon, public accountant, of [ Christchurch, and William James Mason, j secretary, late of Christcliurch, and now oi ! Masterton, carrying on business as Mao- j Gibbon, Mason and Co., agents (Mr C. 'S. : Thomas), claimed from Forbes, Ltd. merchants, of Lyttolt-on (Mr W. J. Sim), the sum of £ll3 10s lOd damages, was continued ' yesterday. Plaintiffs alleged litat by a | contract mado between the parties, the du- | fondant company agreed to purchase from . ■plaintiffs 10,000 feet of 3-inch Canadian j vanised pipe, to be delivered ex Canadian | Planter, which left St. John about February j 21st, 1921, delivery to ho made at Christ- i church, or, if possible, Lyttelton, or other j port if advisable. Tho price of the pipe i was to bo list price plus 25 per cent. Tho | defendant company, on April 27th, and on j other dates, refused to accept delivery of tho pipe, and plaintiffs therefore claimed £ll3 10s lOd, being the difference between tho contract price and the market price. Tho defence was that tlie contract contained a condition that the Canadian Planter left St. John's on or about February 21ft. Tho vessel did not leave until Miueli 14th, and other delays also occurred in the delivery of the gvo.is. The company also alleged that MacGjhi-Qij, o:n* ot the "plaintiffs, agreed to accept a cancellation of the contract. | •After teaming tli-e evLclor.ce, tiio Alasifcfcratc6tated that he "would hold there lisri T>;en no I mutual cancellation of the contract. Mr Sim said that in that ca:-e he would base his defence on the law. He said that as tho Canadian Planter had not left St. John's on tho date specified iu the contract there had been r. breach of contract on the part of the plaintiffs, and so the defendant company was not bound to accept delivery. He quoted cases in suoport. of this contention. Further, the goods had not been delivered witlun a reasonable time. "Wr.h regard to the question of tbmages, ir Sim said that Henderson, manager of Forbes. Ltd., definitely told MncGibbon en April 27t1l that he would not go on with tho ron-tnu-t. r!-intills should <t?» bavc taken j eter-s to sell the iroeds ar.d tiny would h;>.vD . made a profit on them, {or at d.at time • there waa a scarcity of '2-inch pipe 3. In-

stead they did not sell until August, when prices had fallen. Therefore Mr Sim contended that even if the Magistrate found for tho plaintiffs on the law they could not recover damages. Mr Thomas snid that Henderson: did not withdraw from tho contract because of tho date tho goods left St. John'B, but because ho alleged they had not been delivered in a reasonable time. The contract stated that the goods left St.'John's about February 21st. The word "about" implied that there should he a reasonable amount of latitude as to the date of ■shipment. It was for the 1 Court to say whether tho goods hr.d been. 1 shipped within a reiisonable time after Fob--1 ruary 21st. With regard to the question of damages, Mr Thomas said that the contract was finally broken on July 28th, and not ' on April 27-th. 1 Tho Magistrate reserved 1 his decision. CIVIL BUSINESS. (Bcforo Mr H. Y. Widdowson, -S.M.) Judgment for Ihe plaintiff, by default, was ! !>iven in each of the following cases: Royds Motors. Ltd. v. Maurice S. Hnmber, £lO 8s: J. Brcmmor Smith v. Victor Chaney, ; Prince Bale and Emma Bale v. Irving, X' 72s 6d; Andrew Lees, Ltd. v. S. C. Thompson. £1 15s Cd; Armstrong and F'arr : v F. *D. Heather, £lO 5s Id; H. W. Hialop :y. J. Ea.rr, £2; New Zealand Farmers' Coi operative Association v. May Stewart, costs , 7, 7,1 ' '"Alfred Hardin? (Mr J. R. Guningham) | proceeded against Charles Taylor (Mr W. J. f'rncroft-Wilson), on _ P. debtor's aummons. j The summons was dismissed, j ACTION FOR SLANDER, j Jean Wright, :t married woman, of Chrißt- ; church (Mr R. Tvryneiam), proceeded against ! Doris Woods, also a married woman, living at tho corner of Byron and Madras streets (Mr P. P. J. Amodeol, claiming the sum of ; £25 damnges sustained to her reputation, by j defendant's slander. I Mr Twyncham said the facts of the case | I wcro that defendant and her husband had j j resided for a term at plaintiff's boardingj house. They had :hen leit and taken a ' email -shop on the opposite side of the road. ' On December 17th defendant had told o. ! man named Batchclor that Mrs Wright was i "her husband's fancy woman," and on De- | comber ISth she had gone to plaintiff's ! house, slapped Mrs Wright's face, thrown I a lump of iron at her, and uaed abusive language. He would call Mrs Wright. ' Jean Wright, residing at 99 Madras street, said she took in boarders, and was also a maternity nurse. Defendant and her _huebud had lived in her house several times. Thry left her house to take up a shop opposite. On November IStli 6he was sitting in the kitchen with a Mrs Thin, when Mr Woods came in. Ll.tor Mts_ Woods came in and ordered him home. Vi itness asked her what she meant bv calling her a "fancy woman." Mrs Wocds said "So you are, and | nhvavs have been," and witness put her out I o£ tlic iious-e, v/hercapon Mrs Wood® filappcd. ]ic-r iiico and thrc\r a bar of iron, at her, meantime using abusive language. In Consequence of Mrs Woods's slander, witness said that neighbours whom she had known for four years had turned their backs- on her, she had had no application for boatdera for some time, and hoodlums had become in tho habit. o£ "slinging off" at her. Mrs Woodo was very bad tempered, and she frequently used abusivo language. Witney did not use that kind ot language very much. Mr Amodeo: I suggest .that you carried Mrs Woods out of your house and threw her out, oi the gate. Witness: "No! I would'nt take a mean advantage oi anybody." " She also denied having called Mrs Woods ' a cheeky little iir A-iuodeu: Did you say to Mrs Wooda

"I'm not liko you, taiinjf Bp with every Tain, Dick, ancl Harry." Witness denied this, but said 6 Mi W Ctmpte Bad advised hes not to allow any of the girls to go down tho road with Mrs i'Woods, M oho was in the habit cf winking 1 at men. "Wltnass said eh® could ewear a« well so anyone elae, but sh« did not use filthy -words. She had: asked Mre Wood® lo apologise for her remarks, eha Bala "I will go to hell or gaol first." Waiter Wright, tramway mo torn) an, and "husband" of Mre Wright, corroborated tho evidence of his wife regarding the happening in the kitchen. Mrs Woods had threatened to throw & motor wheel hub at his wife, c.nd had cfilled her names. Ho had never seen or heard of anything improper about tho relat&nehip of his wife and Mr Woods. Mr Amodeo eaid it was not a case of malicious slander, but was simply an ordinary roT? between two vrr>men. Mr TVvnphnm: It's more than that. It has been" sent outside, and defendant has not apologised. Doris Wood" eaid on tho mominy ot Xovomber ISth she w=s washing- and lookin? e'ter the shop. She went across to Mi's "Wright's nnd' asked her husband to come home and look after the shop. Witness had refused io apologise- for having called Mrs Wright «■ ";aiicy woman," which aho might hare done when she was in a bed temper. The Magistrate: What aid you mean by : that term? Witness- "My husband would do anythin- for Mrs " Wright. He would wash the "doors, cook the dinner, or anything pho wanted. Ho thinks more of her than no does of mo. I wouU'nt have said it if 1 thought there was any inference m the words." Witness denied having flung t&e iron bar, and also havingused bnd language. 'Mrs Wright had thrown her out of tho gate on to the road. To Mr Twyneham: T didn't mean any "harm by "fancy woman." I might have said anvthin?r. 1 Tho Magistrate said, in regard to the sens© of the "words, that itv was not tho meaning that defendant put on them that mattered, but rather the meaning that any reasonable person would take oul of (horn. Ho tliougfit the meaning put on them by plaintiff was the right one. Mrs Wooci3 had used the term on more than one occasion and if_ she had been sensible she would have apologised. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for .£lO and costs. I JUVENILE COURT. A hoy of 14 yea.ro was charged with haying, on March 10th, at "Riccarton, entered S tho house of Ralph Smith, and stolen a I watch and chain valued st £l. He was j committed to tho Boys' Probation Home. ! IN OTHER PLACES. PRISONERS SENTENCED. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGBAM.) WELLINGTON, March 30. At tho Supreme Court to-day Mr Justice Hoaking- sentenced Henry Harris Tunnicliffe, on a charge of theft of jewellery from an hotel bedroom, to two years' reformative treatment. Venables Matthewfl was Bentenced to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour on three charges of indecent assault upon girls tit Petone. The Judgo naid the offences wore of ft very gross nature, and prisoner should bs kept under restraint. Two lads, Norman Paul Nosbjt and Reuben Curtis Warnock, who absconded from Wemroa, broke into and entered dwellings and committed theft. Nesbit, who had a bad record, was ordered to be detained for three years' reformative treatment at Invercargill, and Warnock was ordered to bo detained for 0110 year. Frederick Vvuliam. Dewhurst, for the theft of a. piano and gramophone from his own family, was admitted to strict probation for two years. COURT OF APPEAL. (ritESS ASSOCIATION TBLEOJtAM.J WELLINGTON, March ,80. Yesterday the Chief Justice, in the Court of Appeal, had before him. a question of & declaratory order interpreting Section 35 of the Finauoe Act, 1920. The point, was whether 0 local body could call on a. bank to honour tho Kiwitea County Council's cheque dTawn to replace moneys in the Joan account, notwithstanding the fact that the overdraft ill the ordinary account will thereby be cn excess of the legal limit. Sir Robert Stout said there was nothing in the Statute forcing a, bank to give credit to a local authority, and tile latter could not compel the bank to find them money. The era of forced loans had expired with the Stuarts. His judgment was thut the bunk ivas not bound to make advances.

EMBEZZLEMENT BY A CIT.T COUNCIL CASHIER. (press association telegram.) "WELLINGTON, March 30. A cashier in the Traffic Inspector's office of the City Council named Moncey Thomas was charged at the Magistrate's Court yesterday with stealing-, between July 11th, 1919, and January 22nd, 1922, £476 11a lOd belonging to tlia Wellington City Council. Accused is a single man agedi twonty-five. The Traffic Inspector said that Thoinae had been employed by the Council for aboui ten years. It was his duty to receive all moneys paid in for liconses issued and f< r motor registration,, and ho should have paid the money to tbo City Treasurer every day and prepared a schedule in duplicate showing the amounts received each day. The schedule was signed by the Trafiio Inspector or somo responsible officer. James Ward, Government auditor, said he ■just completed an audit of the books when he discovered the defalcations. . There i br.e-n an audit in 1919-20, and it had not been, discovered. ' accused, in. a statement, «aid he kept no record of the money no liuu taken. Lis salary was £lB6 per annum. He had sp<\nt tho money. It was explained that carbon records had always been left by the accused, but he did not account for (lie money received.

Accused pleaded guilty, and was committal to the Supremo Court for sentence. Bail waa refused.