MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 511, 19 May 1909, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

;;>-\vo''(Before Mr; WrfG.^RiddeU,S,M.) ;■- .'' ' : -iI 'FAILS., ' ■"•'.'• Reserved-judgment;'was given by Mr; W. G. ,; Eiddell, : S.Mi in the case of the Police; v. ■ : " Win.' Henry, Eager:;' ; Defendant', was charged ; with; being in'Willis' Street on .April 29, for ■ the.'purpose of betting. -The information puv- :. ported 'tor.-tor-laid'- under.'Section'' 24 of; the (Gamingland; Lotteries Act, -.1908. ".'The -words '': used ; ;iri 'infortaation,:':said .his -Worship, -.".'were general .'and/wider than those contained in :.: Section 24. .'•; Itv seemed - to; the ; Court - that -.the -'■ ' offence' created by this section pointed to_6omo-. 'thing .which -required more definite proof than ."the-chargeinVthe information.' No doubt the -.'facts ' : adduced\by the'.prosecution—that de- :";: fendant was . a 'bootmaker ory a ; - bookmaker «■ '■clerk, that, on -April-'29 thcre'was.a race_meot-, -'•;ing at .Manawatu,"' that he'was seen in. \Vlllis : -Street -forVsomo..considerable - .time, during '•which he -interviewedi:soveral:nien,. that. after /some of-tho interviews-defendant made entries 'in-his notebook,; andson one occasion .received -a payment from one of the men-;all indicated : "generally: that defendant, .was, betting, but. gen- :■ eral ovidenco of.-this' kind did not. prove that vrdefendant-'made; bets with any of the persons : ; -- ; ori"some event-jor'horse race.held on that.-date. •:; Unless that was proved or admitted,: his; Wor- '-' 6hip was":of opinion that defendant could. not ': be' convicted;, -The; ection. was ..highly.penal, ; and the-. Court must'be' satisfied ■ that, the evi-. / dence -showed .defendant to - have- committed'the' exact-offence 'created'by it,. The in;orraa> ■ V tion *would 'be dismissed.-. Mr. .J. J.'. M Grath ;'- appeared'for defendant'.., ■... ;.':. : ; ■'. ;■ :.--■ ":. ■\- ■ ' A' : young-man v named John. Noon . pleaded ', : 'gniltyi'-(1) to at .Wellington.South.on ■Slay 7,' committed, theft .of a'boot-last, value. ' :2s.6d;,J.the'property-of. Robert-Young;: (2) 4a; Shaving, on•'May.9,. , at Wellington.'South, com-, , mittedOtheft; of V' brown leather bag, -™™ : ' : (os., ; :the; property: of: Sydney''Brown; and (3) - Shaving,on May .13, at/Wellington - ;-South, :;-oommitted.theft;of.:a* : qlothes wringer.^pf■.the Taluej'ofvl6s.i.tho'property, of, Alfred; Frood,,; '-"■■;'On-the, - application■ of Sub-Inspector. Phair,_ ■ accused .'was; remanded, tillvSaturday for. sen- ■"•■' tence/'to-.enablefurtherinquines to be .made., ; Bail .was'allowed v in the. sum, of ,:"J!I0i. andono; ysurety of,;,JClO..'iv.Mi:.;f Meredith-appeared for: \'Vacoused;;;,;y,';';;,; '.!;v;'; : ;;V";":i , ; ; W;:'-.-'■'.'.'■ ''"■/3\-Z'::'-' ! - ! ;':;;:;'; !3i v' ; Michael 'M'Grath',- alias; Sharkey,:'aliasO'Con- '■• nor,'' pleaded'guilty;to a'charge,;of;;stealing a ■pair' of boots;'av-shirt.-iai.towel,"and a.hat,- ' 'of a'total' value of '20s.i' ; the propertyVof: John f-F.-Haiti'-andiwas demanded-to Wednesday next :':V,for. : s'en'tence.tThe'6am'6yacciised -was'charged ■ ;w-ithi"stealing a; portmanteau and contents, ■/. value--ie6, vthe'."property .-of- Frank •'• C.' •'. Guy,' '■■■ yfrom 'the; of. Kate.; Jew, 'arid was.re---■'Vinanded ~to. Wednesday'•■•next.-.', +y.: : ; - ■-'.:.''.-;, - •;■''.,. '..

CIVIL BUSINESS

■■■\'^y-'-. : M (Befori;D4:lr;M^iiarar;S.M.): ■ W : : ,j, '■■ '■■'■') ijndgmenfc'-Was' ,; cEteied: : ;for';plaintiff 'by' de'V v fanlt of "defendant: "in vth'e -...civil- :'•>:' case's J;'Qriiamett v.' N; Smith; .£7,55. 2d* ': s'• costs Vjßl- ■■'' Ss'.'y 6d.'i' ■ Commissioner,: bt/.Taxes: ; v. : i£B.is.'.sd.',' 'costs Bs/;-same T:'.t., ; Estate ofv'Jane'Comp'ton;£l6 145.;7d., costs •'•:'■lss.";'same"v.' -Kate'Cbmp'ton','£G 17s. '3d.,'i costs: ■■''•'■y'lls.-r .-''"<' costs !Bs.';: samel Crosby..Teors,'■: v£ls .'■■'..f^j'-'Sii'-'-ooStsMSsi,•:'!!.:'Norton"and:Co. v:.Jas; ; ':.''Thos.'.Fitzsimmbns,::-£5,155., 'costs ; £l,3s. ; 6d.; ''.':'■: New Zealand Consolidated Dental,' Co.'v." Win. ■'"': ;Douglas' Johnson;:£22 10s:,.costs.'£2-Us.-; J.'and' ; ;;'E; .Towersey. Ti -Harold.- Oliver, £1.135., : : costs. ■';'■" •'■ss.j; Wellington."TailoresSe's'; and"'Pressers'. 1n-.7"-;;dustrial:;nni6n':fl£;:^.ork«rs;v;f :';M.>;M'Eech'aio;; ' -:, ss. costs only;.'Har'rowby ':■ and..Son .'v."ErnesC- : -.''-John,August,'-' £iMs.; costs:los.'; Hop Tai.and :^;'.-;Ck);-;T;''-M^'-Hayesi'Vi6'J5^':aid;;'~c'osts','-ai. ; '8s.- ■ A: : ;6d;; :.G. r : Rehbra,y. ! : Martin; and : ' Jones,' £3 18s. ,25..3d,Co.,y. ; Frank;Tonks,, ''r;.;;M'-lia^yeosia-'&s; r )'"U-\;\U%'\:Y.. ;:'''/:;■"?'.•- '.:.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

' In'thejudgment'summons case;.the Welling-, ton Rowing ■'-. Club ,;-v. - Arthur.. F. : Newbold,' : a' -olaim ■ for■ '£53Y25.,; Hi. . Neilson,■:for ;the judfc me'nt : ore<litor,'called '.Win,' Jas. ■ Gaudin,' captain of the iclub,'who''stated :that debtor, was trea-. ■ surer-of-the'club to: June, 1908, and received moneys payable', to • the:.club,; and had to; pay. them into; the' bank. Debtor failed to! prepare a balance-sheet, 'and witness;interViewed' him.. He: (witness) obtained the books', and '.-made; up a '■ balance-sheet; .which showed' that ; odd was;,not: accounted^fbrSWitness'; notified",the auditor,'-, who' went through : the books. in - the ; ; presence -of 'Newbold,: and - found,-that- £57 "re-. ,ceived ; had not ;been-paid into;the.bank. Debtor promised^to:make. theXmoney 'good,'.:and had paid a ..small .poftioni;.- th.6.'-'balance .-..olaimed. . being, the' -amount owing!-'. His ordered, ;thdt:,th'e money: should: be ';Paid on 'or,, before' June I,'in default bne'^month's.imprisonment..j ■;:: : Iri'" the- ! case:: t David Barrie,; -a'.debt-.'of £s : .3s,';2d.i''debtor -was.ordered.to L p'ay on or' befpre' 1 June, 1, in default, seven'■ day s= im- : "v; "V-, ; ,'r-. .■■-• No order,-was umade: in...the.case: Cook, and Sons v.-Henry Davies, a'debtof.'*e3;l3BV- : 3d.'.'.'' : ; '"■>' K:viS' H i>EFENI)ED*CASES;:'';;';f;:.;' ; ; :-;i:}^fore.;JJr;;:A;yM'Arthnr,;:;S;M.):7 ':'-_ ';:: 'v- A-HOUSEMEPER'S' ' 'Mary.iAitken :(Mr. !Dix); claimed£lo' 2sj.: 6d.' fiom C.vKitching (Mr. Toogood).rKitching was the owner of a-house'in:wnioh he'and.a friend .'took ; ':up". bachelor ''quarters, -and'-. an ' arrangement, 'was".made'iwhereby -plaintiff/.entered; the ;hbuse ; a's^housekeeper..":No;,'written;'-agreelnen't. J was -ontered/into;.and, : -,'when;'the rpartiesV'.disagroed, .and plaintiff left,.she/'claimed'that the : above sum'was due. to' her. : After, hearing.both Bides,:b£. the;case,' his' ; Worship,'gave'judgment ■ for plaintiff : for: '£l, 'and costs, £1 46s.':.£'•';/,'.,,'.' '•■The;s'ame "plajntiff 'alsbf claimed SI-55.. from A. 1\ Almond 7 (Mr."Hindmarsh), alleging that; defondant "engaged .: her '• to.; do, certain ' - work, 'which .was:'hot: there; when' she-'went for.'it. Defendant' stated -that he had not' entered into any agreement' with plaintiff, but had said that he would give, her some ironing, to do when-he got his laundry under way; 1 His Worship-gave judgment, for .defendant..- :i ' :<:;;: : -.}. : ; y," ; . ■.; v.; i; ;v:A-^^i^''P4^^^ "- Y-eY y; ; ; : : ' John; F.' Witbjiell, engineer, and Percy How-; croft, : . grocer. (Mr.' M'Grath), claimed" i£l7 from •I'hos.; Cook ;and'Son, tourist and general passenger agents; The statement of-claim-set-out, 1 (1) that,; bh'May 5, plaintiffs paid- £38 to'-de-fendantsj and' defendants agreed, in consideration ';0f,.;, the/.-payment, to. give plaintiffs two single /passage tickets from| Wellington to London for their respective wives by the steamer 'Ruapenu; (2) that, as a result of the, con tract, plaintiffs gave up their homes.'in Petone, and brought their, wives. and luggage !to Wellington' on the'mornihg of May C, -when the vessel was to sail; (3) that, on the morning of May 6; informed plaintiffs that they could not give them'a passagi. by ■ the' Euapohu as the ' accommodation : was , : all' -taken up; (4) that, by reason of ■, defendants not, giving the plaintiffs .the passage tiokets, as contracted for, plaintiffs suffered damage to the extent of £17, .made up of oartagO'Of .luggago to steamer,'andback £1,: two weeks' board for 'each wife, and child, £6, and' general ■ damages £10... ' For the defence- it was urged that the con--tract,was that defendants would do their best to.obtain the passages in the Bteamer as .indicated. When inquiries; were made at the shipping company it-was found that there was no_ accommodation left on the Ruapehu. When this was ...found out, thb /passage-monoy given, by >plaintiffs t ',was returned to them. After a partial hearing,,'the case was. adjourned to this morning. ~':-.'; - , ,v :;(Beforo Mr.- W. G, Riddell, M.) ■ ■'■:;■:''-■ CLAIMFOE'WORK DONE. 1 ' Frederick Piatt, carpenter; Northland (Mr. Meredith), "claimed- £2 from . Walter -.Piatt, plasterer, for work, .done in preparing "certain plaosrond specifications:-.-; Defendant alleged that plaintiff hgreed to do ;the work on condition that he was. given the'position of foreman of tho work..-His:Worship allowed plaintiff.£l and costs Bs.' ! ,\':V " . : - : ; ; v .''A'lost:D'oylet.'';';' : 'Ernest Joseph Mbwlari, labourer, Potone (Mr. P.---W. iJackson) sued'Bnll<n and -Wolfe, picture' framors,.Cuba Street, for £8, or possoseion of a.d'oyley alleged to have been sent to defendants to framo; and.which tho defendants lost:. .The defendants hold that the.'-'article claimed - was'worth nothing,more than a few .shillings at the most.- -■'■ ■'His-Worship' assessed the value of tho article at £1., for which, amount.ho.gave judgment for- tho! plaintiff, with costs 6s. .

TRANSACTION IN PROMISSORY NOTES,

MADE' COMPLEX BY OTHER MATTERS. 'His Dr. ;M'Artliur, delivered his reserved judgment in tho case of Thos. Joseph ll'Carthy; (Mr. Johnston) v. Fredk. J. Read (HivDunn). "■■-.•'>.■■ •-,:;-. Tho plaintiff claimed £U, the amount of a promissory note mado by the defendant on, Octobor 23,. 1903,. payable three months after date* to' tho. plaintiff or order, which'amount the dofen'dant had not paid. The plaintiff also claimed .£32-. 10s., the amount of another promissory note,'made on' October 28, payable ■three months, "after date, and ss. :sd. for interest. '■-. By way of counterclaim; tho defendant said (l)'tliat the promissory notes referred to were given as purchaso money for ten; cows purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, and that the. plaintiff failed to: deliver one cow, of tho vnluo of-X6 10s.; (2)that the defendant was induced to purchase the cows by the repre-. sentation of tho -plaintiff; that tho cows-would yield a return of £o a week; that this representation jWas false, by reason of which .tho defendant suffered ,£25 damages; (3) that there was delay in the delivery of the cows, wherefore tho' defendant, claimed .£5 dam ages; (4) that the plaintiff wrongfully obtained from the defendant the promissory notes in "duplicate, aiid discounted the duplicate' notes, which the defendant claimed to-set off against tho moneys claimed by the plaintiff. The total amount of the defendant's counterclaim. was *C3G 10s. '■ On tho day of hearing, March 18, : 1909, the defendant' did. not appear, and 'judgment was given, and at the request of the plaintiff s soli,'citor leave, to issue execution was granted.- -Tho defendant assigned his. estate by deed for' the benefit of his creditors, whereupon, the plaintiil'commcnced bankruptcy proceedings. His Honour,-the Judge in-Bank-ruptcy,- adjourned '.tho proceedings until. May 31, on,debtor's trustees paying'£33 into, Court by 'noon next day, and tho sale of the oattle by'the trustees-was ratified,by the Court.. In the meantime the debtor- was :to elect _as to - payment ■ of ' £33 in; discharge 'of the - debt,; or 'else to-proceed for alleged It £33: were'.' paid: to the petitioners, the. petition should.':be;.withdrawn.; -•-:::".':';' ; ; .-'■" _: v :. . . His-Worship.'said, that; from his : Honours orders, it was evident that he was to consider the, matter of -the counterclaim, which virtually'involved consideration of .the.claim. 'His Worship then answered each paragraph in the counterclaim, as it appeared-to him fromthe whole ovidence.' With regard to paragraph (1) ho held that: the dofendant had "either already got the cow,-or, if he had not; it.was his duty to "go arid get 'it;V Respecting paragraph -J2),'there : was ; no. evidence/of-v any .'representation that'the cows-would, yield l£s;a'-week, except that of the .defendant, which-was denied by the' plaintiff.-. Further,, the defendant's own inomorandum''showed.that for six weeks the cows -yielded' >£i 'los:■ a- week,..when ;tho, defendant was :a. cow. short; so that.if any .such representation '-were -made, ,it - was:, not • false, but:true.'.'-(3).The- delay was-,caiiso'd, ::not,by the (plaintiff, but.by the defendant.': was no. doubt: that the plaintiff had in his possession' two -promissory notes, orio for ,£8 arid one for £32 -105.,--wluch he had discounted, he now. said-ho.had.lost.,-The Court ruled .that theiplaintiff must: give, to' tho..defendant -a-Writtenjundertaking that if at any time these: promissory notes, or either of. them, turn up. ; tho':'pl'aintiff;will. hold the defendant .released; from all responsibility, for the pay-.-' .'ment; of '- '..them. ■.■■': ,His. Worship ./could not .'say. Ithat the acceptance, issue,'or subsequent'nego-. 'tiation-.of-these:bills:had been-affected with, 'fraud,., duress; 'or: force .and , fear,. but the plaintiff must: give ' the - : defendant.. the ivritten guarantee the Court had'described.':'.The plairitiff,!.was suing for a final:.settlement," on:.which the bills' should bo returned.;.; ~: - •■•••,'. '■■■' ;■ As: to the claim, : his Worship,said, the matwas simplicity itsclf. '_The notes, .were, given, arid had not .been paid. .'.Judgment: was for the 'plaintiff .on: the,-claim - and counter-, costs £6 18s.':'.' ."•' : :;w:^i ; :-'-;^ '-i"Reserved''iudgment was.'also ' given by' Dr. ,M'Artnu'r, : '"S.M.; - in tho case, Bertenshaw and Evenseri; fMr. .M'Grath). v... Wm. Kirkpatrick : (Mr.' P;,W: Jnck'son),a claim-for £18, being the prico v of..a hdrse' sold to' defendant by plaintiffs.; at-an ■auction, sale. : The horse was; put .up .f or' sale ''without .reserve", and was; knocked down to 'defendant'for £18. i After.' the sale.,de-fendant-refused ;to take delivery on the ground • thiit-the '(■ horsb: from .ringbone. He .brought : 'no'. : evidence. to support tliis'statement, .whilst; on tho part of plaintiffs, there was'evidence ,that-the horse .was, and. is un'doubtedlj-," sound. The defence relied),.on-two that .an. advertisement of . the sale ,'inclnded some:, eight .■■ horses guaranteed 'sound.: His Worship did not consider such an advertisement amounted to a guarantee, unless 'it was expressed at the sale, or at least made the":conditions' of the sale.: The Court need, not settle-this point, however, as the 'evidence'showed that-the horse sold to .defendant, was not one' of the eight, but was a horse : put .up without reserve. '.Defendant's second point, was .that the contract could not be oniorced,under Section' 6 (1) of the Sale of Goods-Act,'l9oß, but the Court held that it could;; Judgment-.would -.be-for plaintiff for ;costs,:£2'es..: ;. ; -.";::. : ;.;-; ■'..■.■•."