MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 929, 23 September 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) NO EVIDENCE OFFERED. Joseph Arnold Moran appeared on remand to answer a charge that on September 19, at Wellington, he did assault one Alfred Imrie, and rob him of one 'silver.'watch, one overcoat, and one cap, the property of the said Alfred Imrie. Mr. V. Meredith appeared for accused. Sub-Inpector Norwood informed his Worship that since accused had been arrested Detective Eawle had investigated the. case, ..and it was found that, the statement made by complainant was quite false. :.'lt. -now appeared that the complainant and another man had been fighting when Constable Callery came on tho 6cene. There were three other men besides Imrie there, and they were running away, and Imrie pointed out accused as tho man who assaulted him. Accused throw the overcoat and cap away as he ran, and when arrested he had the watch on him. Since then it had transpired that /Ihirie's injuries had been received.in a fight, with a different ,nian, and .that accused .was, on- the. occasion, merely looking oh to see fair. play. No evidence was now offered against him. Informations were, to be laid against two of' the other men for ■ causing a breach of the peace. . > His Worship: Did accused. make any explanation at. the'time.' '■•;■' " .; ■■- Sub-Inspector Norwood.<No,'your Worship; ho was under the influence '■'.. of. liquor.: He admits that he was wrong, in running away. ■ His Worship: It'is -unfortunate for you, defendant, that yon were under the influenco of liquor at the time, and ran away. ; '.' Perhaps you.will have an 'action against Imrie, but It.'may 'not be worth' much. a'. Y. ."./.''■ : •"'. . ' 'Y- ; The- prisoner Was. then'discharged.:: A'iLL-TREATING A HORSE. Bertram Alfred Tile was charged that, on Septem'ber 22, he did cruelly •ill-treat a horse, by working it while suffering from'a. sore leg.,. Accused . pleaded not .guilty; and; asked, to bo dealt with/ summarily. '..... ■.;..• ■;■'//.!. A: Evidence of. the police, showed that'as a result, of'a. complaint- received accused had been charged 'with the offence yesterday morning,, and '.the horse was taken to: the! ; polico station.. v'A veterinary surgeon-, had stated that the case was not 'a'"serious one,.but the horse walked stiff, andiwas hot fit. to' be: worked.;'-.. For-the 1 defence it. was contended that .it'wasfnecessary: to work ..the horse,-as it -was/ ah. "outlaw,"-, and- could only - .bo kept '.quiet -by work. \ If • ii.wero. turned : put, tho;wound could not?be dressed, and, if it;.were;kept,in thei stable, it A 'would, be:;as-fractious as ever when placed; in ' the] shafts 'again,.- ~ ::. -. : .;• \ -.•■>•'•'. A;;•■'■ . His'.Worship held' that, on the evidence of ..the; veterinary :■■ surgeon, accused : A must bo'convicted/AHe .would be fined ■■ 205., in default 48 hours'.'imprisonment. ' .'

i '; : CIVIL; BUSINESS. / / ' ; ; i; (Before; Mr.; W. R.; Haselden, S.M.) '• •':':;'■;■ a.Cpeefect;.el Dorado.' ■• ..:; Patrick ; .M'Namara, ' .of , l ".Wellington, prospector, sued II.'; Aldridge, of 32;Oam'-' bridge /Terrace, ;■ Wellington, for.. £6 55., being of? an 1.0. U. giveii by defendant to plaintiff-oh' April 12, 1910. Mr. C, R. Dix' appeared for the plaintiff; and .Mr. 'P. : Jackson; was for -the ,defendant. ;■ /In/his evidence plaintiff; stated that on April-12; defendant :,h'ad purchased from .plaintiff -a, fourth, share in a prospectingucenso ior £12 10s;, defendant paying M '55.;/in .cash; and /giving' an:'l.O: J. for, £6 ss.'-: Defendant had.: not paid the amount due/underthe.l.O.ir. .or any part of it'.': ./Mr. P.VJacisxin, for the'defence,'stated ;that-,his.client .was ft poor man and. had had noCexperienoo.of..these speculations. ■It 'Was/'ieprcsented to;;liini.that '. he was' ;buying':a:'sliarein,."a!perfect El.'Dorado," but' k 'fortune' did,.not,.result 1 'as: quickly .as/he expected: ! / «''■-'/; ' y , \ '/■Defendant, in' his evidenoey,6tated that pWintiff had with.him' as .'defendant, had. spa'ro rooms' in the house before, his. wife and "family, caihe from England. : M'Namara was a.stranger to him, ibu't after; being there/a -week had .induced : him,to'take a: share/ in. the . claim ■ at ,Okarito. Defendant paid half in cash and: /half'with -'an, 1:0. U., ; which?plaintiff gave; .him. to: understand 'need hot be paid for'; six.'months.'; However, 1 plaintiff requested - payment in a : week's,time..- ...... • : His,Worship said that.judgment;would' have,'to; be 'for .plaintiff for •.the ;amoiint, claimed,- with-'epsts totalling M 35.'.:','.. ' a '>i AN :: ESCAVATING: CONTRACT. ; V;' 'Frederick'-: 'Richardson,' engineer, .: of Road, .-v-sued ■', Alexander a A. Reyhell,' contractor, -of : 76" ; .Coromahdel Street,.- for 10s. sd. for an alleged :breach of contract. Mr .A H; F. von Hanst appeared for'plaintiff,', an.dMr; M. Myers for.: defendant.:- ;. ; ./;.;, '. : -..- ■.-

: : A.Tn hisA statement :"of ./oliiim. plaintiff • said :■ that ;he: had', agreed-with defendant : to 'do;;certain ! excava-ting;work :in cohnec-, '..tion - with .de'fendant's,contract; on: the new. tramsheds: on'..Thorndon Quay,/.775' cubic yards' to. be excavated for <£351057. '5d.; that, plaintiff excavated about "■ 650 /yards in accordance.with the agreement, and paid therefor, in : labour and material ''■the- sum of '^30-55.; that: defendant' had refused, to;allow plaintiff/to proceed .with the-' work/and- had refused; to. pay. him for: the work /already done;': the plaintiff had. suffered "damages' Ain : 'not'.- ; being; al-: lowed to. proceed with th/i contract, and :claimed.--'i£3s.''los."Sd. damages for 'breach of the agreement. In the alternative the plaintiff said,that for, and at the request . of, ; the defendant (contained in, and* to' be", '.inferred; from. the iagreement) he "did much work/in' 'theVexcavating and'actually: disbursed in.'. labour A; and,material in connection 'therewith ,tie .sum of .£3O ss. -He claimed.iSoAlOs'.'Sd.a as a reasonable remuneration: for- thework. A • For: the-defence it:was contended that plaintiff had ' not complied with l the! specifications. in: that,herexcavated- only .sft.' below the, datum .level instead 1 or sft. 8in;; below that level, and that, he had;':refused ,'to .excavate the extra. eight inches-.when requested, 'to ■ do, so. "-.' -, '.; .' .His-.Worship, after.-hearing the evidon(ie,''said that he was coiivinced that the'contract'" was. a- lumpjsum for.the whole' work,: and ' that' plaintiff had- not bean prevented from completing the work. Plaintiff:was accordingly.non-suited without ;costs.'-;A : .'..:..■;;. A:.;':..; CLAJ&.FOR, GOODS SOLD. .' A The C.A and; A. Odlin .Timber and. Hard-, ware Company, Ltd.,-of .Wellington, timberand 'nardware merchants, claimed from J. F;lloss,i engineer, of Wanganui, tho siim' of.-:'ili'l2s. 9d., alleging thnt the amount was-diie by. defendant'.to plaintiffs-for l goods sold and delivered (including ./-labour).-. Mr., 'F. H. D.' Bell appeared for-'plaintiffs and Mr. A., Dunn was,for defendant.' .-' ;A .

.'. His. Worship held ..that .'.the balance' of evidence was in favour -of plaintiffs. Judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs. ' • ; y 7 CLAIM.;-FOB. WAGES .FAILS. ■ -.-. : Wilhelmina Gray claimed £i 17s. Gd. from Thomas Bfamley: (Mr. C. E. Dix) alleging .'.that the amount was due to her as wages for work done. ,After hearing .evidence his Worship gave judgment for defendant. ~-: / .UNDEFENDED CASES. - \ Judgment. by default: was; given for plaintiffs in; the ' following undefended cases:—William John Parsons v. W. O'Shea, £R 7s. 6d., costs £1. 35. Gd.; Wellington ! Gas Company,, Ltd. v. Alex,- F. Davies,' £1 19s. .$&., costs 55.; same v. Andrew Alex.- Lowi £1 ■ 3s. '6d., : costs Us.; Tumbull, Hickson, and Gooder v. C. F. Priest, '£2 10s., costs 12s.'; E. J. Forbes v. G.'-Hoby, costs '55.;. same v. James Frame, M,7s. Gd., costs 55.; J. G. Wilson' v. George. Fawcott, .£lO 4s„ costs £1 10s. Gd.-; Scoullar Co., Ltd. v. Frederick Herston Frankland, 17s. 6d., costs ■CMOs.Gd.; E. Norton and Co. v. B. A. Parker, <£3 10s., costs -10s. In the case of Joseph A., W. M., and Oswnld 11. Cleland v. David Kenny judgment was given for plaintiffs for tho amount s claimed ,£2 25., costs 165., and possession by October 18., .'■;-. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ' David John Macdonald was ordered' to pay ss ; to Johnston and Co., Ltd. on or before October G in default two months' imprisonment. Edward Benge was ordered to pay ,£G Gs. to E. W. Mills, and Co., Ltd. on or before October G in default six days' imprisonment. •No : order was made in the caso of Slorer, Meek and Co. v.- H. J. Hunter, a cluiiu fur J212 is. lid.