THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20101, 3 December 1930, Page 8

THE COURTS.

magisterial* TUESDAY. (Before Mr E. D. Aloslsy. S.lt.V eeeakixq and entering. If our joung men, Clarence Hwjd 6ardnen a wireworker, aged as years, 1 raucis Joß«ph Miles, a labourer, aged 19 r<?arii, bnc Hamburger, a blacksmith's sinker, aged -0 vc <»r»rl Walter Rastriek, a labourer aged "0* v'ears were charged with breaking and eute'rins the warehouse of Hutchison and Co in 'Wordsworth street, and committing tli,.'ft " and Miles, H<imhur S er, and Kastrirk n.To'nlso rliavgcd with breaking; and en tonus the shop o£ Harold JN'ormau I'rancif, in ~elivvn street, and committing thru *«j r -\i- J..;isrclh. , u appeared tor Miles, "LTamburger, and Kat-trick, and Mr C. X'urcbace for Garduer. , C W Barrow, factory manager for .Huv cL and Co., stated that bis firm had * •warehouse in Wordsworth street. He locked those premises on tho liight of .November 1 gtb, and ou t'j6 next morning ho had found that the place had been entered and a quantity of material disturbed. There was s quantity of goods missing, of a total valuo of about £2O. Detective K. Thompson stated that ho baa interviewed the accused men in regard to tho theft. Rastriek, in a statement, said that ha bad beeu unemployed for some time and did not like being dependent ou bis mother. Miles and Hamburger also made statements that they had been out "f work for some lime. Gardner stated. that bo was a .married man ititb four children. The greater portico of the goods had been recovered, "with the exception of two rolls of eilk, tho theft, of *vbich the accused denied. Each of the accused pleaded guilty to the char?© and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Gardner was allowed bail in the sum of £IOO, and on© surety of £IOO. In respect of a second charge concerning three of the meu only, Harold N. Francis, in evidence, said that he had a tobacconist s shop at 259 Selwyn street. When he went to it on November 10th he found the front door had been forced open and tho whole of the tobacco stock missing, some toilet requisites, and all the instruments from the saloon. The total valuo of the Gtock taken was About £ls worth of tho goods had not been recovered.

Each of the throe accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the £upratne Conrt for sentence. Bail was allowed in each case in the cum of £IOO and bee surety of £IOO. SERIOUS OFFENCE. William Georgo Guy, aged CD, a labourer, was charged with a Borious offence against ft girl under the age of 1G years. He vas also charged with failing to provide maintenance for bis children due up to November 4th, 1930. Mr 11. S. <T. Goodman appeared for Accused, who pleaded guilty to the first charge and wa» committed to tho Supremo Court for sentence. Tho chnrgo of failing to pay maintenance was adjourned sine die. TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMI'OSKD. Benjamin Start, a baker, aged oG yi ar?. "wric before tbo Court on four charges of committing an indecent act to offend a woman.

Mr AT. J. Burns appeared for S'tart, "wl r pleaded guilty, and elected to be dealt with by tho Magistrate. Mr Burns stressed accused's previous good record, and his splendid record in the Great War.

Mr Mosley said that certainly the record vae a very fine one, and one which any man might be proud of, but that wan no excuse for the offences, which were of a very Berious nature. Ho sentenced him to sir months* imprisonment with hard labour on each of the charges, tho sentences tub* concurrent. SECOND-HAND DEALER FINED. Elizabeth Thomas was charged that on November sth, at Christchurch, being a license® under the Second-hand Dealers Act ehe failed to enter iu a book particular! in regard to a purchase. The Chief-Detective said that the eharg* was tho outcome of a theft by a young man which came before the Court last month. Thomas had bought a pair of trousers which had been stolen, and had not kept a record of tho purchase. She had not been in trouble before, and he thought that she had not intended to withhold any information.

The Magistrate imposed a fine of 10s and -costs 10s. CIVIL CASES. CLAIM BY ARCHITECTS. Ellis and Hall, of 158 Cadiel street, Christchurch, registered architects (Mr W. R. Laicelles), claimed from R. W. Nanniok, of Sea View Tearooms, Esplanade, Sumner (Mr D. W. Russell), the sum of £l9, alleged to be balance of an account for professional work dona for the defendant by the plaintiffs aa registered architects in supervising the- erection of shop buildings at the Esplanade, Sumner, in Septomber, 1929. The defendant counter-claimed for £l9 7a for alleged defects in tbo building after it was completed. Judgment was griven for plaintiffs on the claim for the eum claimed, and for t'he originaj defendant on the counter-claim for the eum of £5 7a. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. E. L. Jonoa, of 65 Rugby street, St. Albana (Mr K. "W. Johnston), claimed from J. Nelson, motor mechanic, employed by Adams, Ltd., motor importers, Christchurch (Dr. A. L. Haslam), tho sum of £4 10a damages. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was riding his bicycle at a etreet intersection when tho defendant, on hia motorcycle, took a, sudden turn without giving warning, and collided with the plaintiff's bicycle, throwing the plaintiff off and damaging his clothes and cycle. It was alleged that the defendant was negligent. Judgment waa given for plaintiff for £3 and costa.

CLAIM AGAINST BOARDER. Mrs J. Primmer, of Christchurch, board-ing-house proprietress (Mr W. O. Wylie), claimed from Robert Allan, care Sydenham Bowling Green, Brougham street, greenkeeper (Mr U. W. Reevee), the eum of £8 t alleged to be balance owing to the plaintiff for board and residence during the period from March 7th, 1930, to September 12th, 1930. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £% 10s and. coeta. (Before Mr H. A. Young, S.M.) Judgment for the plaintiff by default was given in the following cases:— E. B. Rawlings v. J. Whitty, £6 4s; J. H. Wilton, Ltd., v. W. Crightou, £l3 3s 8d; Maling and Co., Ltd., v. R. W. Wright, £ll J4b 4d; Irene Thelraa Higgina v. D. Is'. McCorkindale, £6; Now Zealand Farmery' Co-oi>erative Association of Canterbury, Ltd., v. William Scott', £2 ss; Jones Motors, Ltd., v. 11. F. ' Richardson, £ll 198 9d; R. T. Otawford v. L/cs WooUen, £1 6s; H. Matson and Co. v. J. Hannan, £1; A. S. Paterpon and Co., Ltd., v. W. E. Crane, £39 10« fid; Christchurch City Council v. Frank William Brightling, 19a 6d; same v. Richard llenry Norton, lis Id; same v. James Joseph Small, £1 ss; A. Edmonds, as executor of tho will of Mary Fox, v. P. J, McCorraack, £43 Iss: Graham, Wilson, and Smcllio v. Alfred Payne, £4 10s; G. Pomfret-Dodd, as receiver for Hutchinson's Scales, Australasia, Ltd., v, R. P. Sutherland, Its lOd; James Lawson v. John Simpson, £ll ss; OhrisN church City Council v. George Bailey Tuson, £4 lis 2d; same v. Edward Strouts, £3l 4s 4d; Wynn-Willianvs, Brown, and Gresson v. George Mayor Milson, 10s 6d; Irvin and Herdman, Ltd., v. Henry Johnson, £lO 15s 9d; M. E. H. llarley v. J. L. Sullivan and Mrs E. M. Sullivan, £5 liu; N. A. Erasmuson v. C. D. Dallison and Co., £8 10s; Francis Clark and Son v. Tj. B. MeGoverne, £l3 7g; O. V. Bergh v. Leslie White, £6 10s 2d; T. Edwards v. T. B. Pike, £G 2s Id.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Frederick Laws, builder, of Christc.hurrh (Mr C. E. Purchase), claimed £JO 4s 5d damages from Road's Motor Co., Ltd. (Mr iJ. It. Cuningham). The statement of claim set out that a collision had occurred on July Bth between plaintiff's car and a truck driven by a servant of the defendant company. The collision was due, it was alleged, to tho defendant failing .to give way, and failing to exercise proper control of tho truck. Defendant counter-claimed for £4 10s. Judgment was given for the pJaiu'iff for tho amount claimed, with costs, and for tho original plaintiff on tho counter-claim. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM, .'fame# Fowler, of Christchurch, taxi-driver (Mr M. J. Burns), claimod from F. V. Bevan-Brown, of Christchurch, medical practitioner (Mr M. J. Gresson), tihe eum of £7l 9a 8d damages sustained, through a collision between cars driven by the plaintiff and the defendant at tho intersection of Cambridge terraco and Hereford street on August 19th, 1930. Plaintiff claimed that the° accident waa caused through negligence on tlie part of the defendant. Defendant counter-claimed for the sum of £22 73 sd» on the grounds that "the negligence waa on tho part of the plaintiff. "Neither plaintiff nor defendant is entitled to succeed." eaid the Magistrate. * l lt seems that each should have eeen the other, and the accideut was the result of combined negligence." Both parties were non-suited.