MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 591, 20 August 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.)" ILLICIT OPIUM TRAFFIC. A HEAVY I'INE. ' As the result of the Customs scorch through the goods of-a commercial traveller who arrived by th<ss.s.'Me.eraki on Wednesday, W. Al-. Fred Masters .was charged with importing into New Zealand opium in a form suilablo for I smoking, to wit, 100 tins, valued at ,£3OO, contrary to Section 2, sub-section 1, of the Opium i Act, 1903. Defendant, who had been out on bail, pleaded guilty, and was not represented by couusal. •. ' Mr. C. S. Nixon, Collector of Customs, stated that tho offence was a serious one, and 'was regarded as such by tho. Legislature, for the Act provided for a .fine not exceeding X'soo, or imprisonment for a period! not exceeding 12 months. Defendant was a commercial traveller, representing' some New .York flnns .of. hatmakers Tho . opium was found in two sample cases, which had been fitted with false bottoms. i When nske;l by his Worship if lie had any exeuss to make, defendant .replied, "No, I-am at the'mercy of tho Court." 'His Worship, addressing defendant, said that ha did hot know -whether he (defendant) was acquainted with the Opium Act, but if ho. dealt, 5n .opium it was his duty to bo so acquainted. ' The . penalties provided .for were heavy ones, and it was clear from tho- wording of the section that the legislature looked on 'the offenco as serious. Defendant would be convicted and lined .6100 and costs 75., in de-' fault two months' imprisonment, r , : - l OBSTRUCTING ■ THE POLICE. A heavily-built man named Owen • Hickey w'as charged l with vi'fiJly obstrncting a constable whilst in the execution of his duty. Tho facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution, - wero to the. effect. that defendant endeavoured ■ {i rc«cne. a man wlio'ivas being arrested for jlrunkeniiess. ' He was fined £S, in default U days'jinpriso'nliicnt. V INSOBRIETY. " Whilst under the influence of liquor, Frank "Lawson did damage to tho extent of 7s. Gd. to a cab, the property' of Chas. Hill' On the' charge of insobriety,"'he was convicted nnd discharged, and," ou tho charge of damagingthe cab, fined 10s. and ordered to pay for the damage dune, in default 7 days' imprisonment. Wm. M'Kuy was fined 205.,: in default 7 days, for insobriety, and one first offender was fined .lfls., with the .alternative of 2-t hours in gaol. OTHER CHARGES. On a charge of stealing an order fi'om the Prisons Department to tho stationmastcr at Wellington- for ;a railway ticket, valued at 4s. l(ld., Win. Kennedy was remanded to August 20.,, — < : A young man named-.Alfred Chas. Necdhanr was fined''.£s, in default 21 days' imprisonment, for an indecent act in Willis Stredt. . CIVILIiUSINKSS.' . . ' (Before Dr.- ,A. M'Arthur, S.M.) Judgment for plainti/f bv default of de"fendantwas'givqfi Sn;t.he- following' undefendedcases:—Scoullar and Co., Ltd., v. ; Georgo Ward, M 'lis.,' costs 55.; Wellington Loani Company,. Ltd.,,v. Edwin E. White, 3d. 7d., costs £2 Bs. 6d.; C. and A. Odlin Timber'sad Hardware Co., Ltd., v, 11. Kidson, ,£lB 10s.. 7d., costs ,£1 10s. 6d.; Humphries Patent Bracket 1 and Scaffold Co., Ltd., v.. J. H. Armstrong, £i r costs 135.; of Smalibone,Grace, and Co. ! Ltd., v. M'Kay Bros;, 19s. id.; costs M 10s. 6d.; Colonial' Carrying Co. v. G.S.-Mitchell, 9s. Gd., costs ss;;'Henry G. Clarke, assignee of Alexander Nelsen M'McCr kan, .v. Alfred Batten, JE3 2s. .Bd.,.'costs ills. ; same v. Alfred John Knocks, .£■! costs 10s.; same ' v; -Michael P. Naughton, ,£l9 Bs. lid., costs £1 12s. 6d. ; Hannah .Stratford. v. Chris. . Nissen, £1' 10s.; costs , ss. ; ' Ellen O'Neill v T.-Biordan, 16s.- lOd.;, costs 55.; liirkcaldicand Stains, £td., v. Edward Benge, £2 l!3s:- id., costs 17a.; Edward Jamas. I'iercy ,v. ■Vernon .'Willeston, .£ls 135.,- costs 10s. Gd'.; Janiieson' Bros., v. Frank W. Wise, .£2B, costs ■£% 175.; J. H. - Smith v.-,J.-H.- Stephens • awl. Son, £2,' costs 10s. ;■ Wm.- P. /Mealy. v.. George Owen, ils,, fid.,, costs 55.; John' Wells- Chapman v. Elsie -Peterson, sC7- 75., • costs £1. Bs. 6d.; Kitto and Graham v. Harold Noonan, .£5 10s., costs £1 3s. Gd.; Willourfiby .Knight v.. Thomas H Harley, <£1 183. f>d., costs 55.; Carr and Bell v. John R. 'Welsby, £S 95., costs .£1 '4s. 6d.'. • ' -• - . i JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ' In the judgment "summons case of Johnston, Sons, and Co.. v. Albert -Thomas Almond, a. claim of <£3 Ss. Gd.; debtor was ordered to pay the amount on or before August 31, in default ■three days' imprisonment.No orders wero made in tho following cases Charles. Begg and Co., Ltd. v. Joseph Charles Minifie, £7 us. Bd.; Rouso.and Hurrell Carriage Building Company, Ltd. v. George Andrews, jun., £3 Ss. Gd.; Frost and.Frost v. Sam Isaacs, £i 13s. fid.; Samuel John Birch v. Frank Gomez, 10s. : ■ ' CLAIM FOR GOODS AND DAMAGES. ■ I'uTthei" evidence wns heard in the case in which John Charles Spedding, merchant, of Wellington, sued Clianes G. Lamb, of Doyleston, Canterbury, trading as 'the Ellesmere Grain Agency. Plaintill sued for ,£65 7s. 5d., tho cost of 2400 bags, and damages for non-de-livery of a part order of straw. Lamb sued Spedding for £1B ss. Bd., being the balance ho alleged was due for produce supplied after deduction of the full amount, which ho admitted was due to Spedding. Decision was'reserved. Mr. Menteath appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Grath for. defendant, RENT AND REPAIRS. Willaim Wilson M'C'ardle sued Ernest W. Baxter for £9 for a month's rent, in lion of notice, and the cost of certain repairs and cleansing the houso after the defendant left. Air. Samuel appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Kirkcaidie for the defendant Hearing' of the evidence was not concluded when the Court rose. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) ; HORSES AND CAVEAT EMPTOR. Reserved decision was delivered by his Worship, Mr. W. G. Riddell in tho case of H. \V. Stobbings (Mr. O'Leary) v. Duffy Bros. (Mr. Herdman). Plaintiff claimed from defendants ,£l6, thcr prico of a horso bought from them on July 3, and £1 6s. 7d. expenses incurred in connection with it since that date. Plaintiff stated that prior to the sale one of the defendants warranted the horse to be sound or fraudulently 'represented that'it was sound, whereas it was unsound to the knowledge of that defendant. On July 3 plaintiff, who was a stranger to defendants, interviewed ono of them in company with one Bramley, and inspected and tried the horso prior to buying it. Evidence was called which showed that tho horso was suffering from ringbane, and that signs of this defect could easily be observed.. While inspecting the horse with plaintiff, Bramley asked ono of tho defendants if the animal , wero sound .and free from curbs or splints. Defendant .replied, "Yes,' •so- far as I know, but look for yourself." This, his 1 Worship hold, was not a direct answer, and was sufficient to haye placed, any reasonable person on his guard. Plaintiff nnd Bramley both stated in ovidence that they had been used to horses, and his Worship held that their examination of the horso, irrespective of the trial, was of a perfunctory nature. The rule in such cases was caveat emptor, and the Court would not assist a man whoso condition was attributable only to tho want of that due diligence which might be expected front a reasonablo person. Previous cases laid it down that a purchaser was bound to exerciso a reasonable degree of caution, and where a defect was such as should have been discovered by ordinary vigilance, and tho had an opportunity of inspecting tho subject matter of sale, the seller was not required to aid and

assist tho observation of the purchaser. His Worship was !» say Hint <lufemltint's statement amounted to n warranty. Plaintiff's want of reasonable cure led to his purchasing the horso without a close examination, and tho case was therefore one in which tho rulu cnvcat emptor applied. Plaintiff would also fail on tho ground of fraudulent representation, as there was not sufficient evidence to show that defendant's statoineut amounted to an active concealment from plaintiff of tno home's defect. . Judgment would be for defendants, with costs .61 ISs. . . ..... PROMISSORY NOTE. , Tho. sum of .£2O 4s/, amount of promissory note and interest allowed to bo due, was clniiucd by Chas. Pratt and Co. (Mr. Dunn) from Hannah M'Alley (Mr. -Levyey). It was alleged that the promissory noto was given by Mrs. M'Alley, who oWed no'money to Dr. Martin, the receiver of the.note.- There was an account due by Mr. M'Alley, bat he was an undischarged bankrupt, and his wifo could not bo hold responsible for his debts. Thereto,™ Mr. Lewey. argued for defendant the note was invalid as there was no consideration for its being given. His Worship reserved his decision. A CONTRACT DEBT. ' Moneys due on a contract were claimed by John H'.-Whellau, painter (Jlr. Fair), from Joseph H. Knight, builder (Mr. Dunn). The statement of claim set out that plaintiff . inApril, 1909, contracted to paint and paper a house on Kelburne Parade for the sum of .£l9 12s.' The contract had been- carried out and extra work bad also been performed at a cost of iC6 12s. A sum of ,£ls 10s. had been paid, and therefore plaintiff claimed the balance of i£lo Us. His Worship gave.judgment for plaintiff for £5 17s. od. and costs .63 133.