MAQISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 737, 9 February 1910, Page 6

MAQISTRATE'S COURT.

. : !j'- ;.-■'.'•''.saulute's , ;. Victory; •,-;;...' ■; . '■. •',A. EiVCECOtTESE ..GXTESSEE: ■:.■": , :■ ■■..'"'' '■' .''" ■' \ '' -■■' '■ ,*■■ ."' . ; (Before Mr. W. G.,Eid4ell,'.S;M.) - ' '■■■ "Guilty , ! .was'the plea : entered 'by a!' voungman named Phil Brady, anas G. IM'Donald, charged with having,' on February 1, at Wellington, obtained.tho sum of i£2'irom: a city, jeweller.by' a certain false pretence, with intent to defraud; ■■■-:■■ :. .Chief-Detective :Broberg' stated that accused, -Who represented .himself as the jockey who had-ridden ~the, racehorse. Salute to victory at 'Auckland, went into a jeweller's . shop in Cuba Street,. 'aud u said-' he had' , had' "win, and .wished to celebrate the 'event by presenting his'wife '.with- a gold bracelet, ■engraved "Salute." The jeweller took ,the ;order, and later accused returned Ito ■the shop and' borrowed £2 . .in'.cash, as. .the ■■ banks : were ■..closed; and he 'could, not-draw;, any money. This :was the last, seen:of..him' until ho. was ■arrested on' Monday by Detective Connolly. The Chief-Detective read a list of ' previous convictions, against accused 'for .thet't.and false pretenpes, which,dated back to 1905: , '- "Accused is a ■ racecourse, guesser," 'concluded the Chief-Detective; ■ Accused, who said 'he , was.a married man with'a ;wife .and '..two .. children, pleaded' hard' for leniency-" 'He; said', ho Lad- - , been: working at his trade, ■ baking! but had lost his "work. .He could not let his wife and children starve, and ■when :he received a .telegram l, fromhis wife,-asking for money, he.got it by false .pretences, but fully intended' paying , it back. ■' '.■;■ ..' '-■ \' '■ ■

/'You are;an: old offender, 'accused— three months," ..was his, .Worship's, comment. ■■....'-,: ; :,. ''...-....;'.■; :■■'■'■■,'{■;':.:,■'■.:■'-

■■'■:-IDLE\.HAOTS';IN-.;TRpBBLE..-f , , , Arthur Edward-JTonks pleaded guilty to a charge of 'haying, 'on January 26, -at Wellington, stolen a bicycle lamp, valued at 10s., the property of William Prestwnbd. .Accused''asked■..•for. a ; chance-to go to work. ■ Station-Sergeant Darby , informed, the Court that:.accused had hot done a' stroke of work for eight months. A remand ,tb February : ll' , was, granted to enable the police' to'. make , ,' further inquiries. ""■?■'":' .'■',;•"'.'"•..' '■.;' ■';'":■' ' ;V : \ : \ : ; INSQBBiETT.. v ;' ' ',/-.- Joseph' Gibbon, .charged with insobriety, was convicted and sentenced tb : 21. days' imprisonment. Two ■ first lOtfenders, who tailed to appear,■•■■ were each fined , 10s., in default 24 hours' imprisonment.

civil; business. THE, UNDEFENDED LIST. A ' (Before Mr.,W. E. Haselden.S.M.) Judgment was entered for plaintiff, by default of j i defendant, in the following civil cases:—H. Oscar Hewitt and Co., Ltd., t. • Emma- Bangi Kotua, £7, costs £1 lls; 6d;;' same v.' , "William Charles May and Caroline;' May, possession of machine, and balance , due for ■ hirej : £7 155., costs £2 Bs. Gd.; Mvuit, Cotterell,'aad Co., "Ltd., v. Vincenzo Almab, 19s. 6d., costs is.; Eobert Martin, Ltd.,: v. Brown and Sherriif, 175., cost? only;- Welsbach ijight Co. of Australasia v. Thos.-Patton Spratt;"■jElf.lls.3d., costs' .£1 10sI 6d.; Edward Collie vi Mrs. IT. , 'hove, £1 7s. 6d., costs 7s. i Henry Savage v. H. C. Ell, £2 19s. 6d., costs':lds'.•::■■... . ' ■-. -.-.'■ ~' ; - .; JUDGMENT: SUMMONSES. • ; : No!orders were made'.'in the following judgment', summons cases:—O'Eegan and Dix v. J. T. Evans, a debt of £S 13s. 6d.: tieorge Watson v. Mary E. Forth,.a debt of 11s.; Joseph William Carr v Alexander James.-a , debt of JS6 9s. 6d.' "

THE WKONG MBS. ANDEESON. ■ ' The balance due on the purchase of a set of harness, amounting to i£2 Bs., was the subject of a claim made by Henry Savage against THrs. C. Anderson. After hearing plaintiff's case, it was shown; that .the defendant served in the case under notice was Mrs. Hannah- Anderson, who had dealings with plaintiff and had purchased and paid for. a set of harness, but who denied any knowledge of the set of harness in dispute. His Worship said he was quite certain: that plaintiff was of opinion that defendant had ordered the goods, but he. might possibly bo malting a mistako. Plaintiff must be nonsuited. No costs would be allowed. :■ Mr Dix appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Brandon for,defendant. .:' ' A BTJILDIN6 CONTEACT. ; A dispute;concerning certain items in a building contract was the subject matter of a case in which ;Gco.'W. Davies and Alfred Lloyd Davies, builders (JFrMPcll) sought to .recover' £tt lCs; 7d. from Leonard Hardie, clerk (Mr.-Blair). It ■appeared from the evidence that the con- • tract Biica given, fay jjlain.tiff\ in ,i£n

erection of a five-roomed-honse at Hataitai for defendant was iE767 165.-Sd., of which sum .£732 19s. 10d. was received by I plaintiffs. After the contract was finished, certain alterations and additions were made to the specifications for which, it was alleged, defendant would not pay, as he contended he'had an arrangement with plaintiffs. as, to the work. His "Worship reserved his decision until Thursday next. ,'TVANT. OF CONSrBEEATION." Eeserved judgment was given by Mr. Eiddell, S.M., in the case Chas. Pratt and Co. (Mr. Dunn) v. Hannah M'AUey (Mr. Levvey), a claim for £W is. on a promissory note given by defendant on April 6, 1908. Defendants husband owed Dr. Martin certain moneys for medical attendance," the sum being £20 -between' M'Alley and plaintiff, who was acting as collector for the doctor. _ Defendant explained her financial position, and it was arranged that she should give ;plaintiff-a promissory note for due at six months. At.. maturity, M'Alley having been adjudicated a bankrupt in tho meantime, the promissory note was dishonoured, and defendant refused payment on the ground , of want of consideration. Consideration was something done, forborne, or. suffered, or. promised to be done, forborne, or suSeredby the promisee in respect of the promise, but in the-.case of a promissory note, consideration was presumed until tho contrary was proved. The original, parties were Dr. Martin and the defendant's husband, and there was no. evidence, to 9how that the debt had ever been assigned by Dr. Martin to plaintiff by power of attorney, to sue for it'•'After dealing at some length with the'law on the subject and the details of the particular case, "his Worship said he thought want of consideration had ' been proved., . Judgment would be for defendant, with, costs £i Is." Security for appeal was hsed at £775. ". ■' ■.-,'. - ■'-•■