MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 993, 7 December 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Biddcll, S.M.) IDLE AND DISORDERLY PERSONS, Three months' imprisonment was meted out to John Mills, alias Henderson, upon his conviction as an idle and disorderly person. According to Chief-Detective Broborg, the accused had a very bad record, and for some time past had made no attempt to work. Another "idle and disorderly," named William Duglev, received a sentenco of two months' imprisonment. DISTURBING THE PEACE. There was no anpearance of Frederick Malam and Jamei Evans, charged with having created a disturbance in Grey Street—and so committed a breach.of the Peace—and each of them was fined 10s., with the option of 48 hours' imprisonment. INSOBRIETY. ■ Kate Wilson, convicted only'the previous day upon a charge of drunkenness, reappeared in the dock' to explain another lapse from sobriety. She pleaded guilty and was fined 10s„ with the alternative of 48 hours' imprisonment. Martin Ford and Patrick Eice, each with previous convictions for drunkenness against his name, wero fined -20s. upon their convictions for insobriety. The °I™>nwas seven days' imprisonment. • William Stevens, convicted, and' disn£ XS ,L for dr unkenness, was fined 40s. (the alternative being seven davs' imprisonment) for having committed the offence during the currency of a prohibition order which was in force against him.

CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr. A. W. M'Arthur, S.M.) THE UNDEFENDED LIST. Judgment for the plaintiffs by default was given in tho following undefended rases:—The Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Company v. Eobert Fitzroy Spenslcy, ,£l9. 6s. Bd., costs .£1 10s.; same Osmond.Butler, £& Is. 5d., costs 135.; Hancock' and Co. (N.Z.), Ltd., v. F. Co-Hedge, £1, costs 55.; J. Dineen v. Wm. M Anally, ■ J3. 10s., costs 65.; Joseph Joseph and Alfred de Bathe Brandon (trustees Jacob Joseph Estate) v. Herbert Francis, ,£7O 2s. Gd., costs M 55.; Arthur Clarke, Ltd., v. Harry Bairstow, .£2 135., costs 10s.; Fred. T. Bowerbank v. James Arthur Dotchin, £3 Is., costs 125.; J. G. Eaine and Co. v, James D. Wllloughby, £6 IS Sj 2d., costs .£1 4s. Gd.; Bunny, Petherick, and Avson v. George Thomson, £2 25., costs 10s.; Magnus, Sanderson and Co., Ltd., v. Stephen Matterson, .£O2, costs £1 3s. 6d. <i

JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES. No order was made in the following judgment summons cases:—Michael M'Grath v. Frank Martin, «£2 ss. Gd.; Hutcheson, Wilson and Co. v. Wm. H Hargreaves, £1 10s.; G. R. Wilton v. Edward S. Williams, £i 10s. lOd. -, Archibald Clark and Sons, Ltd., v. Albert B. James, dCG 12s.

DEFENDED CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S M.) THE MAN IN POSSESSION..' In the case Alfred Burnet, ofWanganui (Mr. E. C. Levvey), v. Messrs. E. H. Crease and Son, Ltd., of Wellington (Mr. T. W. Hislop), the plaintiff alleged that, as the proprietor of certain premises in Wellington, No. 95 Adelaide Road, he had occasion on October 25 last to distrain for rent duo and owing by one Isaac Clarice, -tinsmith, the amount owing on October 25 being ,£G. On October 2G the .defendants, represented by their servants or agents, acting under what was claimed to be, a.bill of sale, wrongfully entered the premises in. question, and? removed part of the machinery and plant which was then in possession of the plaintiff's bailiff. By this action the plaintiff had been unab'le to recover the rent owing, and had suffered loss and damage. Ho therefore claimed for £S, rent due; .£2', fees and expenses incurred in connection with the distraint; aud £3, damages' in lieu of rent. , For the defence, Mr. Hislop contended —and he called evidence in support—that there had been no warrant for distraint", no inventory was made of tho goods distrained, and, assuming that the , goods wero impounded, it • was a question whether, as tho bailiff put in by. the plaintiff clearly stated, possession had not been 'abandoned.

. After lengthy evidence had been taken, and counsel had been heard, his Worship reserved decision. - ' •

AN ARCHITECT'S;FEE. In the civil action, K. S. Rounthwaito, architect, of Wellington (Mr. Short), v. Thomas Hill, dairyman, of Wellington (Mr. P. W. Jackson), wherein the plaintiff proceeded for the payment of a fee of one guinea, claimed to he due for professional services, his Worship declined to credit statements by the defendant in support of his plea that the amount had been, paid, Ad.that tho receipt for tho same.had been lost. In all, £1 12s. was claimed, judgment for which, with costs, was awarded tho plaintiff.

A LEATHER (Before Dr..M'Arthur, S.SI.f Louis Henry Hoaro, boot importer, of Parish Street, trading as J. W. Honre and Co., sued Alfred Loasby, boot manufacturer, of Adelaide Road, for £W 18s. 10d., as damages for alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff set out that, in December, 1907, he entered into an agreement with defendant whereby the latter was to purchase all the goods for his Otaki shop from the plaintiff for a period of five years, provided that the goods were of good quality, and that the orders were fulfilled promptly. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, had failed to. fulfil the terms of the contract after December, 1908, and therefore claimed dEI 67 18s. 10d., tho plaintiff's estimated profit on his business with defendant for tho period from January, 1909, to April, 1910, and from April, 1910, to December,. 1912. The defence claimed that th,o goods supplied by plaintiff were not up to tho required standard. i Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own case, and after ovidenco had been taken at considerable length his Worship reserved decision.

In tho case of Charles Kororeho, charged with using improper language on November 20. a remand was granted on Monday last until later in the month, when tho caso will come on for hearing.'