MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1094, 5 April 1911, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS. ' SHOULD THE HUSBAND PAY? 'A WIFE'S DEBTS. . (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.it.) A civil case of somo interest was heard at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, the point being the right of a wife to pledge ner .husband's' security without special authority. Tiie parties to the case were Veitch and Allan, drapers, of Wellington, plaintiffs, and A. E. Schultz, wine merchant of 'Wellington, defendant, and the claim was for .to 7s. lid., lor goods supplied to defendant's wife. Mr. Short appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. C. B. Dix for defendant. In opening the case, Mr. Short mentioned that ih\ and Mrs. Schultz had had a disagreement which resulted in their separating; While away from her husband Mrs. Schultz had purchased tho goods in respect to which payment was now asked. After formal evidence had been given as to the supply of the goods, counsel called evidence.

Mary Schultz, wife of A. E. Schultz, said that she had beeu married about three years, and on January lti last had been granted separation from her husband, but for a week previous to that she' had been living apart from her husband. What amount of money had been spent on clothes for her by her husband she could not a'soss. as he had always purchased the material himself I and had brought it home for her to make un. He had even purchased her stockings." The guly money which he ever gave her was one sum of 25., three sums of ss. each, and several sums of sixpence. When she left home she was much in need of clothes, and the baby had nothing except what she was wearing. Witness had not had time to pack un clothes, as she had left home under a threat. She pledged her watch and chain for 10s., and then <as she was unable to get her clothes from Mr. Schultz) she took the advice of a solicitor and purchased necessaries atVeitch and Allan's. This wa« done on 14,. two days before the Court granted the separation. Subsequently she had received certain of her effects from Schultz. Witness was subjected to lengthy crossexamination by Mr. Dix as to the steps which she had taken to obtain her effects after (he separation. Mr. Dix asked for a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiffs (Veilcb and Allan) had no right to sue as the debt had been assigned to the Commercial Agency. The magistrate, without calli'mr on the rkfenre for evidence, held that it had not been proved "that the .goods purchased were necessaries, and therefore nonsuited plaintiffs.

MOTOR DRIVER AYAS TO BLAME. Reserved decision was delivered in the case in which Beatrice Amy Pinnock, married woman, Wellington, sued David M'Caombc, expressman, Wellington, to recover the. siim of ..£7 6s. 6d. as damages to motor-car owned by plaintiff and loss of profit thereon. This was alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligent and unskilful driving .of n horse and'vehicle, which collided with (he car. Defendant counter-claimed for the sum of ,£l3 lis., damages to his horse and loss of profit on the horse and vehicle, alleged to have been caused' by tho unskilful handling of a. motor-car owned by plaintiff. Sir. (i. Samuel appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. fi: Dix for the defendant. In giving judgment for tho defendant, the Magistrate remarked that there was the usual conflict of evidence between the parlies immediately concerned, but, fortunately, there were two independent witnesses, if not, of the accident, at least of what, took place immediately before it. Arcording to their account, his Worship felt certain that the motor driver was io blame, inasmuch as he did not sound his horn while going up the hill, and that he ascended the hill at too fast a rate. Such being his Worship's finding, the claim must fnil, and the. counter-claim succeed. As to the damages to bo allowed to defendant, the-magistrate thought that he was fairly entitled to .£ll 16s. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant on the claim and on the counterclaim with damages, .£l9 165., and costs totalling .£2 lis.

XO.PROOF OF LIABILITY. Reserved judgment was delivered in the case in which the Pukuweka Sawmills, Ltd., timber merchants, sued Richard Keene to recover the sum of «£37 12s.' lOd. alleged to be owing on account of timber supplied. Mr. G. Toogood appeared for plaintiff and Air. O. Beere for defendant. In the course of bis judgment, the mneistrate said:—"lt seems that one Hurrell had bought land from defendant, and was building a house thereon. Plaintiffs supplied some timber for this house. They alleged that (by telephone message) the defendant became responsible for Hurrell's account. All trouble would have been saved had plaintiffs got some authority in writing from defendant. On the evidence before me there is no proof that tho defendant, became liable for the timber supplied by the plaintiff to Hurrell. There is, on the other hand, the defendant's denial of such liability. Judgment for defendant with the usual costs."

FOR MATERIAL AND LABOUR. T. Riddlor and Co., wool and tallow merchants, sued J, T. .lay, farmer, Ngahauranga. to recover the sum of £3 IGs. alleged It be owing by defendant to plaintiff for material and labour supplied in erecting two'bridges ■between the properlies of the parties. Mr. G. Toe-good appeared for plaintiffs, and defendant appeared in person. A counterclaim for 10s. Gd. was admitted by plaintiffs. After hearing evidence, the magistrals gave judgment for plaintiffs for £2, with costs totalling .£1 153.

UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the icllowing undefended cases:— Tail and Co. v. John 0. Carpenter, ,£3 lSs., costs 10s.; Chapman and Tripp v. John White Thompson, X!n Bs., costs £1 IDs. (id.; the "Daily Mail" v. Oliver J. Shaw. ,£ls !>.-., costs ,C 1 10s. (id.; H. Oscar Hewitt and Co., Ltd., v. Frederick Williams and Margaret Williams, £2 17s. fid., costs 135.; same v. James Sadlier and Ellen Sadlier, £2 13*., costs 135.; Bolton and Organ v. William fitandon, £2, cost's 125.; same v. John Lane, £1 Is., costs ss.i P. E, Kussell.and Co. .y. Giant

U'ostby, £6 12s. 3d., costs .£1 3s. 6(1.; G. ]i. AYilton v. Samuel .1. Pridmore, £:■> 7s. 7d„-costs ;ci 3s fid.; Phelps, Wilson and l-n., v. Thomas Aufhrnn, JJSS Of. 7d., costs M 17s. (id.; tlie Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd., v. Alfred P. Walker, .£2 12s. lid., costs 10?.; .1. Swindale v. Alfred (Jsborn, .£lO Hi.-., costs .£1 10s. 6d.; same v. Pred Keating, ,£2 75., costs 10s.; Albert I{., Johns v. Joseph lioberts, .£!) 14s. (Id., costs 135.; Searlo, Joy, and Co., v. A. C. Robertson,- 12s. 111., costs 55.; the Pnited Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., v. Henry Edward Whiteman. £6 13s. 3d., costs -CI 3s. fid.; George Henry liaylis v. Alice fitarford Cunningham, -£'17 10s. Id., costs lis. od.; Albert. Henry Tin nt v. Herbert Taylor, ,£lO, costs £1 3s. 6d.' JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Thomas Lock was ordered to pay £i lis. sd. to Hallenstein Brothers, Ltd., on or before April 18, in default seven days' imprisonment. .Samuel Jackson Binning was ordered to pay to .May Diamond -£7 10s. 2d., in monthly instalments of 4:1 10s. No orders were made in the following cases—Arthur Bolton v. .William Matthews, a claim for .£8 7s. 2d.; Eric Johnson v. P. Gomez, a. claim for M 13s. Gd.; Adams, Ltd., v. T. W. Twist, a claim for £i 19s. ABOUT A SEWING MACHINE. (Before Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M.) H. Oscar Hewett and Co., Ltd., sewing machine importers, Wellington, sued John Horn, stablekceper, Halcombe, to recover the sum of ,£1 155., alleged to be due on account of a Wertheim sewing machine sold to defendant. The sum of £1 ss. had been paid into court, leaving a balance of 10s. in dispute. Mr. Anderson appeared for plaintilfs, and the defendant appeared in person and contended that the payment of 10s. was not yet due. After hearing evidence, the magistrate nonsuited plaintiffs and allowed defendant .£1 15s. Sd. costs.

POLICE CASES. Annie Maud Sales admitted having been found drunk" on Monday, but denied that she was an idle and disorderly person with insufficient lawful means of support. The evidence, however., was against her, and she was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. On tho charge of drunkenness she was convicted and discharged. Ernest Stanley Nott admitted having deserted from the steamer Corinthic on March 22. Ho was sentenced to a month's imprisonment and ordered to pay ' court costs 7s. Mr. W. H. D.. Bell appeared for tho agents of the. vessel. Hugh Hamilton was charged—(l) With drunkenness;. (2) - with using' improper language; and (3) with resisting Constable Gedge while tho latter was in tho execution of his duty. Accused pleaded guilty to all charge?. It appeared from the evidence that Constable Gedgo had been called on to remove Hamilton from an offico where his presence was unwelcome, and when removed Hamilton had made use of the language referred to, and had then planted his fist ou the constable's jaw and dislodged a tooth. On the charge of drunkenness accused was convicted and discharged, and on each of the remaining two charges he was fined £3, with the alternative of fourteen days' imprisonment. A young man named Charles Buchanan pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness aud to a further charge of attempting to commit suicide. Sub-Inspector Sheehan stated that accused had been drinking heavily, and while under the influence of liquor had gone into a pieshop in Manners Street, and seizing a knife had inflicted wounds on his wrist and ankle. Ho was still suffering from tho effects of drink. On the charge of drunkenness accused was convicted and discharged, and on the other charge he was remanded for sentence until April 11. Cecil Murray and Geo. Barrett nleaded guilty t.i a charge of using threatening behaviour in Willis Street, wherebv a breach of the peace was occasioned. Each accused was .fined 10s., in default seven days' imprisonment. A first-offending inebriate, who did not appear, was ordered to forfeit bis bail of 10s., in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Three other fn-st offenders were convicted and discharged.