MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 878, 26 July 1910, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. .W. G. Riddell, S.M.)

A SATURDAY NICHT MELEE,

PUGILISiyFINED. As the result of tho "scone" outside the Grand Hotel.on Saturday night, Hobert Hollo, a pugilist, was charged with—(l) drunkenness, (2) using obscene language,' and (3) refusing to leave the premises of the Grand Hotel when requested to do so. Accused pleaded guilty. Sub-Inspector Norwood stated that liollo was in the bar of tho hotel in a drunken condition and quarrelsome.' On being asked to leavo he refused, and used objectionable languago to the manager. On being taken in charge.out- ' side the hotel lie made use of further bad language. On the first charge accused was convicted and discharged; on.the second a fino of £5 was imposed, with the option of twenty-one days' imprisonment: on tho third ho was fined £1, in default seven days' imprisonment.

DETECTIVE POSSIBLY MISTAKEN.

As a sequel to the foregoing case, W. M.'Lcod was charged with inciting Rollo to resist the police. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for' accused, who pleaded not guilty. After hearing' evidence his Worship remarked that Detective Cameron might have made a mistake regarding M'Lood, and dismissed the information.

A PURPOSELESS THEFT. Appearing 011 remand, William M'Guirc, a young man, pleaded guilty to tbo theft of six kits, valued at 65., tlio properly of some person or persons unknown. <

Air. C. R. Dix appeared for accused, and stated that his client had committed tho theft when under tho inllueiico of liquor, ahd had not tho slightest recollection to whom tho articles belonged. Ho liad como down to the city from the country, where lie had been working at a flaxmill, and had spent his cheque on drink. Accused had been previously convicted in 1905, and was then ordered to como up for soutenco when called upo u . His relatives were now prepared to got him back to his billet.

His Worship remarked that ho would give accused another chance, and ordered that ho should como up for sentence when called upon, provided that ho returned to the country that day.

AN INCOME TAX RETURN,

The Wellington Workingmen's Club and Literary lnsfcituto were prosecuted, on the information of Robert Edward Hayes, for failing to furnish a certain return under the Friendly Societies Act, 1909.

Mr. H. H. Ostler, who appeared for tho prosecution, said that the offenco was a. breach of Section 36 of the statute, which provides that a return of income and expenditure should be furnished by March 31. The request had not been complied with by the defendant club, and tho penalty stipulated was a maximum fine of £20.

Kobcrfc Edward Hayes stated in evidenco that the club had not supplied any return since 1906, but had sent several printed balance-sheets, which wore incomplete. Mr.' Ostler remarked that the Department did not press for a heavy fine, as the secretary of the- club had promised to supply the return within a week.

His Worship entered a conviction, and imposed a fine of £1. with costs £1 7s. 6d.

MILK M.OISTURE CASE.

The Department of Public Health took action against the Fresh Food and Ice Company, Ltd., for selling to Carl A. Schauer, on May 25 last, milk which it was alleged contained a greatcri porcentago of water than was allowed by the Salo of Foods and Drugs Act. Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted on behalf of the Department, and Mr. T. AV. Hislop defended.

Mr. Ostler said that Carl Schauer, an inspector appointed under the Public Health Act, procured a sample of milk from the defendant company on May 25 last, and an analysis of tho sample showed that it contained 10.35 per cent, of water.

Car] Albert Sohauer, chief inspector under the Public Health Act, gave evidence as to obtaining the sample and submitting it to Dr. M'Laurin to be analysed.

Mr. Hislop: What were you before youwero appointed inspector? Witness: I was a sanitary plumber. Mr. Hislop: Had you any experience of milk before that?

Witness: Yes, in various ways; by milking, and working iiv cowsheds and dairies.

Witness, continuing his evidence, said that he stirred the milk well in the vats before taking .the sample. Ho had been employed taking samples of milk for tho past.six years. Mr. .Hislop, for tho defence, submitted that at this season of tho year it was difficult for cows to give milk up to the standard quality. Ho then quoted from a Departmental report to show tho variations in tho quality of milk obtained from cows on tho State farms. It was admitted in the present case that tho milk was under the standard, but that was duo to nature rather than by any fault of tho defendant company. John de Flue, factory manager in the employ of defendant company, said that when Schaucr took tho sample ho (Schauer) did not stir tho milk thoroughly, and, under the circumstances, did not procure a fair sample. His Worship, after reviewing the evidence, contended that a prima facio case had been established against tho defendant company, and imposed a fine of £1, with £1 15s. 6(1. costs.

MAINTKNANCE CASES.

Stanley James was ordered to pay 15s. weekly towards the support of his wifo and child, the first payment to bo made on August 1.

Edward 0. M'Guirewivas adjudged the putative father of an illegitimate child, and ordered to pay 10s. weekly towards its support.

Harriott E. Montgomery was granted a summary separation against Edmund Montgomery, and the custody of two children. Defendant was also ordered to pay £1 10s. weekly towards their support, tho first payment to. bo made on* August 1. Costs amounting to £2 6s. were allowed against defendant. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for complainant.

James Joseph Curran was convicted of disobeying an order to pay £1 Bs. a week for the maintenance- of his wife and children,' and was sentenced to ono month's imprisonment, the warrant to bo suspended so long as 10s. per week were paid. !

INSOBRIETY,

Luke Farrell, previously convicted ot drunkenness, was remanded to August 1 for curative treatment.

A prohibition order, to havo effect for toelvo months, was ordered to bo issued against Louis Francis Hardy.

Ernest Knight Davis was convicted and forclmnkenness, and on a charge of procuring liguor during tlio currenoy of a prohibition order, was fined £2, in Idcfault seven days' imprisonment.

Three delinouents, who did not a\ poar, were lined 10s, nnd two first often ders were convicted and discharged. A Hrst offender, v'ho was found helplessly drunk, was remanded to August 1 for curative treatment.

OTHER CASES. 'George Walter Dickcrson was ordered to pay 7s. Court costs for alltfWing a horse to be at-large. ; For allowing his chimney to ; catch lire, Chow Kco was: fined Gs., and ordered to pay 7s. costs.

CIVIL BUSINESS,

(Before Mi. AV. R. Easeldeh, S.JI.)

CLAIM FOR MEDICAL FJSES.

Harry Edward Gibbs, medical practitioner, sued Charles Hickey for thesum of £12 125., for professional services rendered. Mr. i). Jackson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. V. Meredith for defendant.

The claim was for services rendered in connection with the accouchement of .defendant's late wife. The services, £\Venty-four in all, were performed in May, 1909. The account originally was for'£ls 155., but this was reduced to £12 125., "out of consideration for defendant."

It was submitted for the defence that plaintiff had agreed to perform the services for £3 35., provided that tho case was a normal one. Plaintiff admitted this, but the case proved abnormal, in its features, and tho patient contracted blood-poisoniiig, with the result that an operation was necessary,' and, further, that Dr. Ewart's services had to be commissioned. Tho patient eventually succumbed.

Under cross-examination, plaintiff stated that he could not swear that ho told Hickoy of his wife's condition, and the necessity for an operation at tho timo it. was performed. He admitted that t-lio ordinary confinement chargo was £3 35., which allowed for attendances up to tho ninth or tenth day. It was stated by defendant's counsel that £7 7s. had been paid into Court, and, after an adjournment, the parties agreed to a judgment for that amount, without costs.

In consenting to this course, Mr. Jackson said that the defendant entirely withdrew any allegations of negligence or unskilfulness, and it was admitted in the ordinary way that if no contract had been made, as alleged, the fees charged would not have been excessive.