THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18363, 22 April 1925, Page 6

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. TUESDAY. (Bc/orc Mr W. Meidrum. S.M.) DRUXKE.XXESS. A first offender for drunkenness was convicted and fined as, in default 34 hours in gaol. MAINTENANCE. William Cecil Martin, disobedience of a niajntenanco order, was convicted and sentenced to seven days in gaol, sentence to be suspended so long: 38 the defendant pays tho sum of £1 10s within seven days. ' Frederick Meadows, for disobedience of a maintenance order, was convicted and sentenced to U days in gaol, the warrant to be suspended so long as he pays 5a a week off tho arrears in addition to current payments of 30s a: week. William Thomas Morris, who was eaid to be £llO in arrears under a maintenance order, was convicted and sentenced to six months'' imprisonment in the Mount Eden gaol, the warrant to be suspended so long as ha keeps up current payments and pays 5s a week off the arrears. Prank Cecil Spencer was convicted and sentenced to seven days in gaol, the warrant to be suspended provided he pays £o 10s, as arrears, within seven days. Lawrence Chapman Withers was proceeded against by his wife (Mr A. H. Cavell) on two informations of having failed to comply with maintenance orders. On one he was convicted and sentenced to fourteen days in gaol, the warrant to bo suspended so long as he pays the sum of £5 in reduction of the arrears and pays 7s 6d a week off the arrears, in addition to £1 5s ft •week under the current order for the maintenance of two children. The second order had been made in respect of Mrs Withers, and on that, ho was convicted and sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided ho pays £5 off the arrears, which amount to £ll, and 7s 6d a week off the arrears each week and keeps up the current payments of £1 a week. Leslie Wolfe was convicted and sentenced to 14 days in gaol for a breach of the terms of a maintenance order, the warrant to be suspended provided ho pays 5s a. week in reduction of tne arrears. Margaret. McCasky sought to have lion, guardianship, and maintenance orders made against Joseph Alexander McCasky in respect of herself and her three children. It was etated that McCasky was a commercial traveller residing at Anckland. The grounds on which she asked to have the orders made were persistent cruelty and habitual drunkenness. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate said that the grounds h-id not been proved. However, he made a. maintenance order for the. wife at £1 a week and for the children at 10s each per week.

IN OTHER PLACES.

A DOCTOR'S CLAIM. (rauss association telegram.) WELLINGTON, April 21. Dr. C. D. Henry to-day proceeded in the Magistrate's Court against F. Bichardson, a civil engineer, for £llß, balance of professional fees.

Plaintiff, who had! attended Richardson for seven years, stated that if he had charged according to scale the hill would have been twice as much. He had performed four operations. Replying to the assertion thai these were not consented to by defendant, he said that Richardson had not refused them, and insisted on the last one. Defendant in evidence said that he consented, te a slight operation, and had not been informed of tho real nature of the operations. The Magistrate said he sympathised with tho defendant, as tho operations were not, in defendant' 3 opinion, satisfactory, but his impressions were not necessarily correct. Judgment was given for the full amount, and £lO costs.

APPEAL COURT.

(press association telegram.) WELLINGTON, April 21.

In Clarke v. the Wellington' Poultry Farmers' Association, the appeal waß allowed with costs..

In "tho case, Lang y. New Zelaand Insurance I '' Company, tho appeal was dismissed, with costs lb respondent on the highest scale, and a new trial was ordered in the Lower Court.

In ' the Full Court case, Saunders and the Chairch Property Trustees v. the District Land Registrar, the' judgment given was that the Registrar must Register the transfer and that there was no subdivision within the meaning of the Act. In Saunders's case the costs of both parties are to bo paid out of the assurance fund, and in tho church case, both sides are to pay their own costs, as no specific fund is available.