THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20097, 28 November 1930, Page 10

THE COURTS.

+ .— _ MAGISTERIAL Thursday. (Before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.ilj IIpMANDED. ' Arthur George Charles, a labourer, agr-d 59, appeared for sentence on a charge of assault. He was further charged with being •an idle and disorderly person without euflicient lawful means of support. Senior-Sergeant J» J. O'Grady BairJ accused had been convicted of assault in July h:,t and ordered to come up for sentence if called on within fix months. Mo was o married man, but would not clay at homo. He went round from bouse to house cadging and rummaging in garbago tins. Police evidence was that unused had called nf houses asking for food and cigarettes. He also tipped out the rubbish linn and searched anion? thn refuse. In some cases liq would go into shops and enquire tho price of goods, but never hud any money. When told to go he would get- abusive. Accused wa:; remanded to uj'pcar ou Docomber -lib. NAME SUPPRESSED. A girl aged 18, for whom Mr W, K. Lascelles appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining a pair of shoes valued" at iil 17s fid from a <-i < y firm, by falsely representing that, she' bad authority to charge them to a customer's account. Chief-Detective J. Carroll said tho girl had seen tho shoes in the bhop window, and had taken a fancy to them. She had authority to put the shoes down to an account, but when told that it was closed asked that they be put,.down to another account. This was done and when the lady got tho bill she knew nothing about it. Mr Lascelles tftid the girl had boon in her present employment for nearly four yearn, and lier employer was prepared to say that sho had given tho utmost satisfaction. .Up to the present breach her character had been .flawless. She came from a. goad home and a very respectable family. When tho important question of getting a pair of shoes to match a new dance frock arose eho had yieMed to a Midden impulse. Tho Magistrate said that there was no need to place the girl on probation, as it was unlikelv that she would repeat the performance. The influence that a desire for clothes eouM exert on a girl was extraord:nary. She ft-ould be convicted and ordered to come un for sentence if eaMed opon in three months, and ordered to make of £.') 17s 6(1.

Her f>arnr> wjk in >•<» ISSUED VALUELESS CHEQUES. Arthur John Joseph Koger.N, a clerk and labourer, aged 25, i»f 292 Hereford street, whs charged with obtaining, on November 4th, 1930, with intent to defraud, ouo roll of hatn, valued at t'Js lod, from T. 11. Greeu and (.'o., of Christchurcb, by falsely representing that he had authority lo book tho same to tho account vf Henderson aud Crewes; that ou November 10th. with inteut to defraud, he obtained from T. H. (Jrecn and Co. tho sum of .!*<s 10s 2d by falsely representing that a cheque drawn on the National Bank of New Zealand at Ivecfum, for £7 10s, u«a velid f'>r that nmotjjjr, and with obtaining with intent to defraud th.) sum of .ft Ms 'id from William Henry Hill, on November 4fh, by falsely representing that a cheque drawn on the National Bank Rt, Reefton for f9 10s was valid. Dr. A. L Ifaxlam appeared for Rogers, who pleaded guilty to tho three eharges. C'hief• Dote«*live J. Carroll stated' that accused was to be married, and had presented for tho payment of the ta\i hire a eheque which turned out to hn valueless. On the f-amp day he had purchased a roll of Ipn from Green and Co., and told that firm that lie had authority to bonk the a-'cunt to Henderson and Crowes, for whom he had at one time worked. The firm refused to pay tho account. A«• i* uthen paid the amount, but with another valueless rhetjue, drawn on the National P»ink nt Reefton. He then wept awav to the West CoaM on a wedding four. H~ had Mjs»f"iu"ntly pj;id tireen's neeount, but had not paid thn amount owing t<» tire firm. A-'^u.-ef} mus convietrd previously for theft, and as still on probation. Dr. Haslam stated that Rogers had been relying on n brother to lend him money for hi" wedding, but thr brother had failed him at the last moment. Previously ho had had authority to use the namo of flenderson and Crewes when pledging credit. 4 ' Every thin g po*.*iM« has been done for this man," said Mr Mosley, in sentencing Rogers to a t«»rm of six months* imprisonment with hard labour, on the first and third charges, and l-l days' imprisonment with hard labour on the second eharge. PLACED ON PROBATION.

The two charge* of demanding mono* with menar© atrains.t William Robert Sharp, a labourer, aped T'o, who was remandod on Tuesday for medicul examination, v ere redured to one of threatening behaviour. The medical effieer'a report state* that the acciiKPd i-" 1 very rhildifch i his demeanour," said Mr Mosby. "II" do** not eecm to roa.Hß© the serioujne?s of the charspi." Sharp pleaded truilty to the reduced charge, and was convicted and placed on prnbatjon for 12 month", a condition bein;* that h«* refrain from a 5) intoxicating liquor. ITe was committed to the Saltation Army Home at Addintfton tvhile efforts are being made to secure him employment. civil rashs. (Before Mr K. L>. Motley. P.M.) 810 CI,ATM ALhOWKD. ' D. TT. TVrown and Son, Limited. flourmillers and general merchants, of Ohristchurch. claimed from A. Carotene, a Port Chalmers fisherman, tlif hnm of .?'22 7 tfs "d. the amount nwinf to them for motor spirit. foIi! and de livj-red to detendnnt during the months of October. IP'.!3, to January, 10:u>. Mr R. N. C. Kill appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. I*. Godfrey ff»r defendant. M ov| r»f the ovider««n in eonne.sion with the claim heard previously. CJ/icolone, it H*as stated, secured tho motor spirit from ono of tho plaintiff firm's asjen's. and resold it !o other fishermen nt Port Chalmers. Judgment for f <ill amount. uith costs, was given. for plaintiff. CLAIM FOU CALLS. A claim for i'l3 I.>s, being the amount duo on rails for shares, was made by the Canterbury West land Ltd.. n trains t tv.o brothers. Henry and David Jamison, farmers, of Canterbury. M' \V. J. Sim appeared for plain t ifT.s, rind Mr F. l\ Sargent for tho defendants. It. was stated by M r A. I*. ('». T< y 111 *• 1 seeretary of the p'aint : ff rompanv, that, nn application for 25 Hharea wreceived from tho defendant- on May 2 Ist. 1927. Tho shares werr allotted on .Tune 0!h of the v.ime year, defendants notified of the allotment. and registered an nharehoWlers of the company. An amount, of 2.v fid became duo on application, and a .similar amount on allotment. Three Valla were made, notice bei'i'/ duly scut out. The fourth call made on .Peeeinber 21'b. No enlls had paid up bv defendants. Wjfneep stated that he wouM swear that the first notice lie received from lh* defendants of ;inv complaint about, the allotment was fifteen month*, ufter the allotment. ITe supervised all the company' 5 correspondence. T», was submitted for that their application for shares had been .secured by •ho hi-ol."r*M undnr mi-representation, the njept having wonjrly represented to one brother that the other was acrreeahlo to the transaction. They Mated that they, v-rote to the company repudiating the a pnlicat ion Ion? before the date stated by plaintiffs.

Cros«:-r.\a mi n;i ti on of the t'vn brothorp, vho gftve evidnnee, centred niniiily o»i Iho correctness of the assertion thnt th«\v had writleu to the company nt. nn early d.'itc nftpr rrcoivinsj notice of allocution, complaining' about the misrepresentation nllegcd. In erivinc .iudgme.nt for ibo amount, claimed and costs for plaintiff. Mr Mos-ley stated thnt although ho thought the defendants Mere hone.«t in their depositions, ho vns not satisfied that they had given this notice of ,repudiation of tJm contra'-t. (Reforo Mr H. A. Young, S.M. 1 ) • • .Tu<lgment for the plaintiff'by default was given in the following rases: Boath and Company, Limited v. W. .Thompson, i' 3 9.s fid; F, D. Kesleven L. M. Bassett, W. Basoett, and Alr.s M. Tj. Bassett, i'l7s; CommisSsionHr of Trixes v. Henry Farr, A'l 10s 7d : Canada Tyre and Kubber Conipany, Limited v. R. Hadfield, i'osts only; Canterbury Drivers* Union v. F. Oysell, e l f, B fid; Mating and Conipanv. ljiinited v. ?kfrs H. Gatrell, i!2 ss; F. Kettenbtirg v.-M. C. Davidson, .f6; liobert Francis, Limited v, Barnes Shewan, .I'B IOs; .T. Jf»hnston v. Hector Cooper, X 7 1 ()s: New Zealand Fanners' Co-opera-tive Association of Canfoj-bury, Limited v. R. At. S. Fallingham, i'2 1 i»s- 2d: h. Shortl v. C. Hill, J'l 3 2s; Booth, Macdonxi'd and Com-, pftny, T.imited v. K. T*. Coburn; i's s ILS S 6d * same v. I\. Faston. 13s 9d ; If. W. Bulli' vanfi and Company, Limited v.. ,L Jeffrey, £} 0 ; W. H. S.imms and Sons. Ltd. v. A.. Fox', i'2o Is 4d; Quill, Morris, Ltd. v. i'\ T)/ >Villiams, .£122 is 9d ; Francis* L. Scott v-. A. 'W. Wellbourne, i'l lis Gd : T. .L Slecman v Mrs M. Smith, ill in*; N.Z. "Express Co Ltd v. W. Wallace. £3 17s: C. N. Fot. 'Ltd. v*. Wiliiam Molyneux. ,€B-Sa: Gordon and Goteh (Aust.), Ltd. v. A. M. Harper. £1 10s; "W. H. Nicholls, as liquidator of Domiuiou Rubber Supplies and Tyro Sorrirp, Ltd. v. Dousrlas Jones, £4 .11 s 6d; Canterbury Central Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited v. J. Chambers, .£4 8 is 3d; Hay ward' Bros. and Company. Limited v. H. T. Butler, fi!o 2s 7d; Brit coo and Co.. Ltd. t. "M. R. McClurg, ,iun., SI 15s 3d: R. 11. McKcnziw. and Co.' T;td. v. P. Middleton, £4 4s 2d; J. A*. Scott v. "Mrs I. D. Me'kle, 1 f»s tsd ; IT. Matron and. Co, v. Josepli Bradbhaw, i 8 12s 6d ; I. M. Cooper" v. Owen Crtit>h!ey, X2 : 71*. Ansley v.- Bertram Ldwards. Si ; * Biiig'. Harris and ; Co;. Ltd. v .N. Ingram, .171 Ss 4d. - JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. S. Jones was ordered to pay R. C. Horsley and F. J. Good, trading, as Horsley and Good, tbo sum of .M' 9s fid forthwith, iu default five days' imprisonment. H. Clark was ordered to pay J. Lorimer £6 12s 4d forthwith, in default eight days' imprisonment. ' T.. C. Smith was ordered to pay Bishop and Co. £-1 4s . forthwith, in default five days* imprisonment. LEASE OF PROPERTY. Garland Frederick. Dobby,' farmer, of Christchurch (Mr R. L. Saunders), claimed £33 Ss lOd from; jQhn' ilorgan r retired, clerk, of »-NeW_Bwghton.'(M> H. H. Hanna). .1 . The statement of claim set out that defendant bad. agreed to lease a piece of land

au -nl'iint'ff, and had failed io carry •from Ine P fifths agreement. Plaintiff ou t the terms oi ]and „ .. g claimed for ' oS r ß e . leasine - th* l»nd.. : : : commtsston g i v en for the plaintiff for tsi^ I ftniou° t claimed-with eosts. ■