MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 743, 16 February 1910, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THEFT,OF:NEWSPAPERS,.... 'V,''(Beforo;Mr.?wrG. -Ridclcll, S.M.j ;; Thefts ,o£ .morning, i-have. been a cause, of .considerable'aimo.yanco for •Some''time~ptist: i-At'tho Magistrate's Court.-'.yesterday,' a.'.'bright-looking,'■;but-diminutivej'. boy. .entered a 'plea.'of guilty. .to'HSyiig committed^tlieft of 21Dominion;. ;riewspapcrsi „valn'ed at. is.. 9i1.',. :tho;'pro-; !:perty of Margaret .-.Bcvim. Hint tho.boy.rwas seen to.take'tho-papers from' Mrs.' 1 Bcvaii's store at.Berhampore,; and ;ho soW'tlie" .papers'';The;b<>y : :was convicted .and ordered ~ to '.receiye,; five, strokes of ,tlio birch; and'.was. also ordered 'to bo-sent ..to the . "Wo'reroa i Training. Far!n,,.w:here:his.fathor;iwill;.be- required to pay 4s. per.week for .his'-maintcnaiice;^' .'. Another . juvenile I'.ofFendoiv aged; l l4 .years'; . pleaded: guilty'. : to-a''charges'of. having, on February,;.l2,;;. obtained \ an from. tbVTJhion" Clothing■■ Com-. . pany ■by meansi'of f It was. :stated ; that ; defendant had. got out of the .'control ;'of his ..foster parents, .'Arid . had been in J similar, trouble .ui.r-Palmorsf, ton North' within-thoDast few weeks, YA: conviction' and. order toenter.+lie-Bunt ham- Industrial School was entered,', the mother' of the.boy being ordered-'td: pay; ; ss. per week- towards, his maintenance. -':;

CIVIL BUSINESS,

-•;; 1 ; .'. THE UNDEFENDED . :;•:'iv : i ■•■', .(Mors Mri.Wv :■;•_ :■•■ Judgment was entered for.plaintiff by default of ■ defendant Win-'the. following cases:—OnslowsEstafe- C0.,-rLtd.-, :.v. .Chas. Burdon: Buxton,' .£lB/ 65..,3 d., costs.'• JB2 Os. Gd.-;"Mary- ; JahV-;Dy«>ri' v.-Frederick. Aslin, £3 , costs j;i ißs;-.'6d;-;,NiZ?;-l?wit arid-Pror,-:duce Co., Ltd.,H.:rEdith';*MtwW:right;s2ei(l ■6s. 6d„ costs 10s. Gd.VWinS Frederick. Win. .Todd; ' 6d.;,J-olm Brodio and Co; v...S;,M;lnt#b, 6s; 9d;, costs 12s.;'Magnus Sanderson'.'and ■Co.VLtd.;-v. "Canning aud CoV 155.; costs 15s:; East Bnrnliam Estate ;Co,; Ltd., v. Ernest E. Middleniiss,:"'i!l22. 3s._ .9d.j• costs' Jc6: Is.j,-J..Smith; atid. Co. _v. : ■William Anderson; £i 55., costs 10s. !.;H. Oscar Hewitt and Co., Ltd.,: V.v. Philip Bailey and Hepzibah Bailey, £2:ss.,.costs 13s;;'Eobert'-. Hannah; -and'■'■ Co.,'- Ltd.;v.y; Caroline. .Wallace, M ■■ 6s:v 2d.; /costs': 8s;; same v. : William.'. Johnson, ..-JBa jl6s.--.6d;, costs lis.; H. Oscar.Hewitt and Co;,;. Ltd., .v. Esperanto Whaitiri;.. J!4 10s,, costs -1 is.; Patriok Joseph Griffin v..' GeorgeMackay, '£27 7s. 3d;, costs £2.145.; George Willis v. *'Percy ,G; ■, Jeffery and— J'.y -'-H-Angerstein,-'.Sss''■'. cpsfa-,^4. rt .6s^6d;; }' ;'■: ,!iuDGiiENT^guii^i:q§^^?: r ;g( ■■■ In the judgment su'mrffons'case; Thomas Walter lymons v.. Duncan Campboll, .'defendant was- ordered'; to .'.payv'l.Ds. .on: pi boforo. February .22, in. default 24 hours; ;ihiprisonmeßt..-- ,-;..' ■-.'■ ■■■"'■'.:.';.'£.' . ... ■" .'Daniel; O'Sulliviui '"was ordered.' to, pay Brewer, Fultb-i and C:>.:.£ 32 125...1id;,-on or •beforp,.„Marcli'.!;;liv.-. ;n",-, default ~;bne month's'imprisoririient'.. i,:'; :;•' '&'?> -St . ■.'' - N6"\ ordei*s ".Vere'.radde'; ,in. the ; cases Elizabeth Edmonds .v.:. I'rod -.Riddehough, a debt .at- "JJ3I,"-9s;;: W.'.L. ■ Dickens .v, Joseph (William Bull, a debt 'of -.£23:155., ;' ■'•' ;:;.-;:AN;.;_ir)^EEESTKiG; ; POKT;'';'; ' Tho &utU : Pncinc ; JloHgage and Dep'osii .Company,;Xtd.,, r claiihed agaihsti.'.i r -'EMi'zrnoke, .general,;dealer.'■. f0r. : ;.£13 ,18'sii and-'defendant .'eottntsr^.tai'nied'for;. £15 ;.ss. It appeared ; thot ascertain-party/assigneo ■some ./furniture, :'otoM-.y.t6-V,the.- , -plainti|l /cdmp,ahy,.\a,nd thb'n "sohUfho'goods-to de': -fondant. J > lftmtiif-.ipntv, i tho f . b>"iljft ;.an.tc dfferidan t's -shop posscssioh-i : ol •been - sont n i6,.-,tne,. n au,o,ap,n-i tjjni;j».y «J.i)dgi ;Djspp'ius';.£ompi^ -sum-.'was. practically'-''admitted.'';Regard-■jig-" the : ;countcrclaimiJ:ropresenting- damages; for '-wrongful"entry;'and 'charges, the point argued..wiis whether the' real.ownoi .of goods was entitled to go; on the.pre-;mises-of.:.a ftnd'>tak'e;'them, On this .que.jtihii,., his ■ Worship.; reserved (decision until-Tuesday; next; , Mr.; Ncayc appearocl: for-'.-plriiritiffs,■";arid ''. Mr. Hindfmarsh for /.'defendant; ' •';/'-v ; ''•■■ -. ■•'- iW-' HOTEL 'BROKER'S/CLAEu\;' : J. ';■ Commission ; ou-the-siiie''of:-. , an'-hotol'. was the subject'of'a'.claim fot ,v .£75- Iriade by John -Brodie'.;and' Co.,';hbtel-brokers-;(Mr. YoungV'.against . N G,; Hnwkins;i. hotelkoepei ,(Mr.':.Treadw'ell). ''Aflcr'i,hearing; portion of the -.evidence,; the" case' was .adjourned until this, morning:';; :'■:■'-. i".-.;.-..'•'.-,/'{■;-.•'■.' '; ..v^^^ENT'O%,hA^STABBE^; jv : --; ■I'' -fe&--s i'-i-va-.vfr-'' ;vu~fes/ ';.. (Before .Mr, :S S.M.)': : ; September 20 ;'t« JS'pve'mbor,22.formed'tho-.basis^di':a .claim foif J .-^'-'-12s < .- ,, 6d'.i'-byiD'r. i ''Wf , -:i'>'.Ciia'ppK against William-and Hargreaves, . ■ Defendants urged that bach of; them had occupied, the. premises .for- h portion.; of thoitimo.'.butvthey'. could -not- tdll'jiow ! inuch-; each was/responsible for. "■'-. Judgment was g'iven;'for plaiiitiff;. for .the amount claimed;, and-costs-JJ2 10s. -.Dei i'endants;were "ordered .to- pay itlio v amoun( .equally. Mr. Bis:, appeared for plaintiff, and defendants were - no; represented - by -.'couaseU v,-; ; -i-';.'.:,..-., : ; >.!/.;;,v.: ■-•.-.:-, ! -;.. -'-ri.-i.-.T'.' y ; y '- .Reserved : decisirin'-was| "given by Mr. Haselden, S.M.,"iri the caso Hdnry: Robottom'r (Mv.: Blair) 1 .riVEdward-Ja'sV-Leydon .(Mr. i'itzgibbon), si' claim for out of-ah alleged breachrof agreement. It was; stated that defendant, a draper, ongaged; plaintiff r'.oit: a- twelvoV months' ■' contra,c.tt and., that before the..crid of ..the enicceiited', aNtr'ansiei; bf--t'ered by his ..employer,. /Defendant "urged 'that, this .cancelled''theyagrccmeat'--.'.His judgment ■ for '-plaintiff for .theamount claimed'arid .costs 2s. /-Security for appeal /was fixed; on the application of Mr. Fitzgibbon. " :'■;.''', ■ -;■-;:'; .}■ BUIiDING-,CONTEAOT,;' : \' ; Ecserved : judgment was given by Mr. .Haselden, S.Mi; in-.the,.case.:df G;'.W.V-ai'd A.'.L; Davics,.builders, v.XeoiiardiHardie, Hataitai, l ;avclaim •forrJCS-i 16s. •7d, , .f0r certain, extras, in. connection with a, contract for-,the creotibn of.-'n. house.',' His Worship gave' judgment'/for; an -amount of .£l2, 17s; Gd. : -and costs 65..-.':)■: Mr; •FeU.nppeaicdifor plaintiffs:and Mr.;Blair for defendant.;-; - ■ ; . ;■■ ' ■ ■■ : ,y. ! ■. ■ Electricai* treatment was the subject of n reserved judgment by Mr. \V. "G. Riddell, S.M;;-' in the case" of' Axel Holtz (Mr. v Neavc):;v:i Jas.' ITisher;-;vof Christchurch;, (Mr.,- Weston)'.' Plaintiff claimed tho-sum '.'of :J6. 6s. for services rendered to defendant's wife in November last. Tho patient,'.,it; was stated, was. 66 years .oX. "'siffering from, paralysis.' Shbhnd.been.attended.oyvavior.j doctors,-'who . a'greed ;::v tliot-.-"-;'inassago treatment,was ;of;little.,or..no benefit to her.... His":W.brpbi'p, thbu'gh't"that'.this: evidence ,Ins; .boi-ne,' q.ut'^bF.'.aJs'tatement'.by plaintiff, -"who described.-.Jus .patient,;.as having improved" at first, 'but"hftor;/-"a .week or , 'two.had*(!6ne.''.bnck , 'llgniiV. ; fendant objected' to his ,wifo "undergfting the. mnssago -trea.tmcnt. unlcss v - plaintiff guaranteed 'a- ciirbi; but, not do this. Plnihtiff..su|isetiu,eiitly''/tTeate*cl defendants, .wife, but defendant.' refused to;pny/oii''-tlie grbuiid'-'that .'lii.s'-''wife .had ho authority to pledge his credit. J-'Plftiif- . tiff,--for his part,- relied on-the fnct-that defendant knew., that..his wife was being treated by hini'.yet'did hot"at once notify that he would not bo responsible.. It seemed (said,.his Worship),. flint, with thq knb«ledgb"possesse(\;by^ltii'ntilF, - ,an equal onds, lay.; upon:'him' to ascertniii if -de-.fondant.-would. pay/;fof. hiswifo's-.-treat-mont.' After dealing with.- the law ; on: the subject.of a husbnnd's,liability.:in.s\ich a case; his .Worship stated that defendant notified plaintiff within a -reasonable time,'' and.-, plaintiff imisjt prove that \liis services wero^'ne'bessary;-. to, defdidnnt's wife'-before he; cbuld-'succced. ; "Hq was not a legally-qualified practitioner. If ho had 'been,'' his position 'would ' have .been.-iitreiigor.--: As: ; lie wns-not -a legally qualified practitioner,, the' prepared!to"siry that the" ovidenc'o 'showed that 'the!-services" rendered • could-be ; coiijidered';,'as nbcbssnry'.:' Tlieir. benefit,-: jf any, -was doubtful.''- -His''Worship- -considered that plaintiff acted honestly in tho matter. -Ho.advised defendant's wife, that- ho-'could-.riot- curb; her, but that ho could relievo, her. condition, to, sbmo,-,cx-. tent, and ,'he- treated - - her-,, accordingly. 'Judgment.wbuld..ho;.;i!or.'idcfendaut,;,witui put COSts. '".-¥\ .-Jtvf-.:".' '.'■' ••• '■ .'v