THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18424, 3 July 1925, Page 7

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. THURSDAY. (Before Mr H. V. Widdowson, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two labourers -were each convicted and fined 20s; in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. GIVEN* A CHANCE. Two breaches of a prohibition order ami failure to comply with the terms of his release on probation were admitted by George Isitt, aged 50 years, who was convicted of theft on May 4th last and admitted to probation for two years. .His Worship said he would give Isitt another chance. On the first two charges accused was convicted and fined 10s and costs, and for the breach of his probationary license his Worship extended Isitt's probation for two years. CIVIL BUSINESS.

Judgment by default, was given for the plaintiff in each of the following cases:— Ilordie and Thompson, Ltd. v. W. ,T. Kennedy, £l6 .Is lid; Dougal! and Upham v. Thomas Denny (Soekburn), costs onlv; Dougnll and Son v. F. G. Warring (Christchurch), £l2 12s: J. A. Rohb v. Forbes, Blackmore (Christchurch), £32 12s; S. Wales v. H. X. Hahn (St. Albans). £1 0s fid; Turnbull and Jones, Ltd. v. J. Clarke (Halswell), £2 6s tod; Simms and Sons v. H. Wright (Mosgiel), £9 18s. PAPAXUI HOTEL DEAL.

Herbert Charles Watson, hotelkeeper, Papinui (Mr G. A. G. Connal), sued E. T. Day, of Victoria street, South Brighton (Mr C. V. Quigley) for the sum of £SO, alleging that under an agreement dated April 16th, 192.">, Day agreed 'to purchase the lease of the Papanui Hotel and stock and furniture, and agreed to pay the sum of £SO by way of deposit, which, however, had not been paid. Mr Quigley moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the contract entered into was subject to Day finding finance. The Magistrate reserved his decision. (Before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.) "UNJUSTIFIABLE ASSAULT." Charged with having assaulted William Thomas Hobbs, a teamster employed by the Kowai County Council, at Leithfield on January 21th, a middle-aged man named Edward William Harris, Winchester street, Christchurch, employed by the Kaikoura Motor Services, as a motor-driver, pleaded not guilty. Mr P. W. Johnston appeared for Hobbs and Mr W. J. Sim for Harris. It was stated that on the morning of January 24th Hobbs pulled his team of horses and dray, containing two tons of metal, to a standstill on the bridge at ■ Leithfield, while he went to gather some tools he had left ne.ir the bridge. In the meantime Harris, driving a char-a-banc, appioached and entered on to' the bridge from the other end. When H.ibbs went back to his load he saw the motor approaching, and waved to the driver to stop to enable him to get over the bridge first; but the car came on stopping about ten or twelve yards from the leading horse. There was an argument between the two drivers. Hobbs pointed out that he was first on the bridge, and that it was only fair that Harris should back off the bridge. The defendant, who was apparently a hasty man, started to back, but went too hurriedly and struck the side of the bridge, tearing oft' some baggage, and a rase of tomatoes went over into the river. Harris then lost his head and came forward, and there was another argument. The defendant pushed Hobbs and unhooked the leading horse and Hobbs hooked it up again. Harris then called to his passengers to come to his assistance. Ono Maori passenger grabbed Hobbs while the defendant completely unhooked the leading horse, handing it over to a European passenger. He and the Maori then backed the dray off the bridge. Harris said to Hobbs that he would put in a claim for the lost tomatoes.

The position as stated by Hobbs was denied by Harris. Mr Sim contended that the defendant had acted reasonably and that Hobbs had acted in a perverse spirit. By asking the passengers to assist in backing the dray off, the difficulty would have been obviated. He said the case turned on a legal point. .Be submitted that the push which Hobbs alleged to havo received was a technical assault only. His Worship held that Harris was guilty of an assault on Hobbs. Would Mr Sim like to be heard on the question of penalty? "I would like you to make the fine £5 Is," replied counsel. His Worship said if such cases were brought before him he thought the amount he fined the offender should be accepted. Mr Sim said he thought it was the Court's custom to accede to counsel's request to mako the fine large enough for a general appeal. "Very well," said his Worship, "I'll make the fine £10."

Harris was accordingly convicted and fined £lO and costs. His Worship added that ho considered the assault a most unjustifiable one.

IN OTHER PLACES. COMMON GAMING-HOUSE. (PRESS 'ASSOCIATION aELEGRAM.) TAUMATIUNUI, July 2. In the Magistrate's Court/Thomas Tuohy pleaded guilty-to a charge of keeping a common gaming-house. He was fined £75.