MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 684, 8 December 1909, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; Mr. W. G.Riddell, S.M.) ;' EEMANbEDF(JE ; SENTENCE.: ■'■' _A .well-dressed yonng nian named Archibald Mays pleaded guilty to a charge of between October 31 and November: 30, at Wellington, stealing the sum of .£ls, the property of Whitcombb and Tombs, Ltd. As ho had only come up from Christchurch that morning, ' ChiefDeteotive Broberg asked that defendant bb remanded for sentence to December 10. This was; done.:■';•'..■'•' •• ,'_'.:.".;" - INSOBRIETY. '.One first offender for insobriety was fined 10s.;.with the alternative of 24' hours in gaol. John Kyle,' who had offended once previously, was fined 10s., in default 48 hours.

CIVIL BUSINESS,

I (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) Judgment for plaintiff by default' of defendant was or' '■! up in the following undefended civil .— Stenhouso ~ J'abor v. Frank Wilkinson, £3 10s. 6d., costs lis. ; John. Turner V. Tawho Pnrinihi, £'J 7s. Gd., costs £1 :14s. 6d. j. Commissioner of Crown Lands v. S. W. Cross, £3 19s. lid., costs 10s.; samo v. H. L. ■ R. Ishcrwood, JL& 12s. 2d., costs £1 18s. Cd., Herbert Hill, Ltd., v.Ben. Archer, £o 55., costs £1 ss. Gs.i Commissioner of Crown Lands v. Jas. Richmond Mabey, £i lis. 4d., costs jElj R. and E. Tingey and Co. Ltd., v. Alfred Percy Westbnry, i 8 25., costs £1 3s. Gd.; Wellington City Corporation v. Win. Henry Sheppard, £1 18s. Is., costs Bs.; same v. Jas. Aitken, £6i 18s. 7d„ costs ,£1 10s.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. Arthur Stanley Judd, <£13 10s. 5d., costs 155.; Wellington Biscuit Co., Ltd., v. Chan Fan, costs only 175.; samo v. Peter Cume, .£5 18s. 7d., costs £1 3s. Cd.; samo v. Wm.: Smith, <£13 Is. .id., costs £1 10s. Gd.; Geo. H. Thornton v. John Jas. Bourko, £2 195. lid., costs 10s.; Fragra Tea Co. v. Mrs. JJarding Toomer, £i 15s. 10d\, costs 55.; Cyril Paget v. Wm. Fitzpatrick, £i 4s. 10d., costs 10s.; George Doughty and Co. v. Arthur E. Humphries, .£2 Cs. 6d„ costs lis.; Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. Jas. Augustus Boyd, £o 4s. 8(1, costs .£1 3s. Gd.; H. Price and Co., Ltd., v. W. Hague, .£5 16s. 9d., costs .£1 os. 6d. JUDGMENT. SUMMONSES. 'In the judgment summons case Hunt, Cottroll, and Co., Ltd., v. Juliii3 Henry Wm. Angerstcin, defendant was ordered to pay a debt bf ,£l4 Is. 4d. on or before Decomber 21, in default 14 days' imprisonment. F. W. Lietz nas ordered to pay Jas. Knight a debt of £8 lis. on or before December 21, in default seven days' imprisonment. F. Caipontcr was ordered to pay Edward Collie a debt of .£1 Bs.'sd.'on or'nofdre December 21, in_ default three days' imprisonment. Reginald P. Bell was ordered to pay Menleath and Beero a debt of £8 3s. 4d. on or before December 21, in default Seven days' imprisonment. No order was made in the case of Marriett Petersen v. Sidney O'Brien, a debt of £6.

''■■':: : :':'":AVVENDjDR'SyRESPONSIBiLin;.'.'.--. : --.'.: '.-' A question of torts wa3 the point,in a reserved judgment .'delivered' by, Dr. M'Arthur yesterday in the "case: of-John Riggandi Co.v. Ernest Edward Grimmett, a claim for possession; of.', show jars valued at ,14s. 6dl The jars had originally K beeh sold byßigg and Co.; merchants, to-a man named Cording. He had not paid plaintiffs and tljey. had a bailment .over.the.;.goods.-Cording, however,"- sold 'his business.:and:-.'with;it tho-jars,: to. defendant, who wai; a. pastrycook. V Defendant had paid Cording:for,the goods and ho .therefore held ; that he was not liable for any further amount. His Worship held otherwise and quoted Sal■mond'on Torts'to ; the 'effect that "the. pur-, .chaser -of "goods 'from'.a ■'■ vendor who has no titlo ; to; them is liable, to; the. owner for; their full;.. value if■' he! subsequently ■*' sells tlieni." Judgment'was therefore given for, plaintiff for' possession or 04s. 6d., and costs 6s; Mr. ton Hnast.appeared for plaintiffs and Mr.'Dunn for defendant.;; -'^' : . '■■' -;i''.-:.-?"•.'.-■"•-

:;-;• PEEI-miNABT/PbINTS ; ' ■': Judgment was also;delivered by his Worship, Dr:. N'Arthury on 'preliminary points-raised by counsel;for;the defendant in.the case 1 of.H. E.- t ; Manning -v. A'. .T. : A;-- Craddock, a .claim 'madeAunder Part lILof the Wages Protection and /Contractors' Liens. Act 1908, ; for.tho "recorejy 0f,. Mi1., 19s. 7d., alleged to -bo dueto, plaintiff'for'. th'e'.frectidh of a five-' roomed j house.;•.Plaintiff, .in■ the statement'of; claim, also praycd'.for a.;lien fpr'.the'sum' mentioned,on.:.the,Ja'nd bf.'dcfcnddnt, .but he : was not proceeding 'with .this claim, but: only, ■for,,judgment .for..the.,amount i dub, and edstsi' Counsel for- defendant' contended that plaintiff ■was liot entitled to''.bring a personal claim under:the. Act or.recover judgment...H6 contended';: that iplaintiff,had; to.\bring a,separate .action',i ; saying', that .a claim under the ' Aot named -was ,a, claim', in', rem..and a; debt was": a claim in ' personam There ~was: no authority, to -join the; two actions in one summons'.'

..;'- "No, one; disputes," said - his Worship/, "that a debt is a.'claim' in- personam and I niay.be inclined; to i admit: that a' claim for a lien '■ is inasmnch'as it .is a claim generally, and; not against;'an individual." continued, .contended ..'that. : there was.no anthprity, for joining the' two actions inone .summons, •biit:his,Worship stated'that there : i was.., no .authority to show that this could;not";be done. 'Under the Magistrates' Court Act a plaintiff might.unite. in the-samb statement' of ; claim/ several;.causes', of .■ action; ■ provided that the causes of .action could: bY : convenientlytried and disposed; of together.' There .\rhs; nothing in tho:prosent. case', to .prevent : the causes of action being' heard' together, 'wore it-necossary to doso.. But it was not necessary as;the. claim, for a lien' had been abandoned. His Worship also ruled in plaintiff's favour on,.two:'other ,and minor points. 'December 10 was appointed'ias the date for the further .hearing ,of the case. ' Mr. Fair is for plaintiff and Mr. Arnold for defendant.

A PRINTING CLAIM. (Before Mr. W. G. RMdell, S.M.) Tho "New Zealand Times" Company, Ltd. (Mr. Samucll) sued tho Wellington Rowing Club (Mr. Nielsen) for the sum of £3 ss. for printing annual reports. Tho Rowing Club brought'a counterclaim for .£lO for detention of a framed photograph, the property of tho club. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £1 12s, and non-suited defendant on the counterclaim.