MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1375, 28 February 1912, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. M'Arthur. S.H.)

WHO TO BELIEVE?

CASE OVER AN OLD CHEQUE,

At the' Magistrate's Court yesterday, Dr. M'Arthur gave judgment in a case in which Whitmoro . Green claimed from Walter Evenscn the sum of .E5 as the amount of a cheque dated February 15, 1910, drawn on the National Bank, and dishonored on presont'iient. Plaintiff abo claimed 16s. as interest at 8 per cent. In the alternative, plaintiff claimed the amount as money lent. The plaintiff alleged at the hearing that, in January, 1910, he had loaned defendant £h, in acknowledgment of which the defendant gave him a post-dated cheque for £a, dated February 15, 1910. On this cheque, now two years overdue, the plaintiff never sued till last week. He said that he lost it, and had only found it lately. Defendant's statement by way of refutation was to the effect that plaintiff had advanced him £5 which would be duo as commission on a sale. Meanwhile, until the commission becanie due, the defendant gave a cheque for £o to the plaintiff. When the sale had been, completed the defendant demanded his cheque back. Plaintiff said that he had "lost it, but would destroy it if he found it. Since then there had been transactions between them, and the plaintiff, ou one occasion, had paid Hie defendant £1, notwithstanding that tho plaintiff- now alleged that the defendant, at that time, owed him JES. _ . In his evidence the defendant denied that the cheque which he'had given was post-dated, and his Worship said that an examination cf the defendant's banking account showed,that there was no necessity for him to post-date a £5 cheque to January, 1910. The defendant, continued his Worship, recently sued the plaintiff for a sum due on a commission, and it was not till then that the cheque came to light. The whole question ' was one of credibility, and, in his Worship's opinion, the facts were in favour of the defendant, for whom he gave judgment. At the hearing Mr. D. S. Smith appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Ifitzgiblnn for the defendant.

DEFAULT JUDGMENTS. In the following cases judgment wa* entered for tho plaintiff bv default-.—John George Win. Shelley v. Sarah Jano Bird, -£170 ss. 7d., costs .£8 Is.; King Goldmining Co. v. Kerr Maxwell, .£2O, costs £2 (is,; same v. Charles Fred Osborne, XI" 10s., ccsts £1 17s. Bd. j H. Kahn v. Charles Henry Smith, 18s. Sd„ costs Bs.; Griffiths and Co. v. James Murphy, £■[ 55.. costs 10s.; 11. T. Hoddy v. A. E. Guthrie, .£32 18s., costs £] Bs.; John Edward Jcnkinson v. H. Groat.'ieiul, £2 9s.- Id., costs !i< ■ Smith an<l Smith, Ltd., v. T. V. Lyons and Co., £6 lis. 2(1., costs £\ 3s. lid.; ,!olm Duthio and Co., Lid., v. Harry W. Littlewood, £21 9s. Id., costs .£1 3s.

FIKEMAN SUES CAPTAIN. Mnrrison, of the steamer Drayton Grange, was sued by James Fowler for .£23, as wages duo for 40 davs' work at firing, at 10s. per day. Mr. P.*J. O'lfegan appeared fur Fowler. Jlr, O'Kegrin stated that ho understood that the captain was under the impression that howler was n man who had deserted from the Drayton Grange 15 months ago in Australia, and, on that account, had declined to sign him oif. The plnintilf did not admit any desertion, and, in any case, that had nothing to do with tho matter. .\« the Drayton Grange was U> sail that afternoon, there was nothing- to do but to take out a short service summons, and, accordingly, tho parties were before the Court. The plaintiff, Jumes Fowler—a. fireman rMidiaf in W?Ui3)gt)oa--itated ia (rideao*

that ho had signed on for the Drayton Grange on January 111. at Ills, per day, mid had worked (ill I.Vljrm.rv i"S. when ho desired lo leave the vissnl. Ho then spoke to tho captain witli reference to his wage.-, asking liim when lie was going to "finish him up," as he lux! 0.0110 wiih two other men who had been living. The captain ivplicil that he was going to take him (plaintiff) to England. Witness had no intention of going to l-.ng-land, and had only signed on fur the time the vessel was in New Zra.aiid waters. There was about .£-2 duo in him, and there seemed to be no prospect of a settlement. Captain Murrison produced n document, which he stated showed that howler had signed on for three years. Also, ho said, the agreement contained no mention of coasting. He asked Fowler if ho did not sign an agreement to complete tho voyage to England. Fowler: No. A voice from the auditorium: Ihe agreement is for six months. , . , , Siduev Gilbert Stringer. Assistant Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Wellington, stated that he remembered the men signing on ns firemen. One of the men brought a note from either tho captain or the chief engineer asking witness to sign them on nt 10s a day coasting. The mention of coasting hod been omitted from the agreement because the definition of "coasting" in the note was not clear enough. This was the first time that ho had heard of an agreement to pav 10s. a day for firing being said to applv to other than coastal voyaging. For ocean voyaging it was usual to pay bv the month or by the run. 'His Worship pointed out that tne a-reement for three years meant for a term not exceeding three years, not a minimum term of three years. Judgment was for the plaintiff for .£22 (£1 had been paid by way of advance) with costs £i 15s.

POLICE CASES. TEE THREE SEAFARERS. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.IT.) John Devine, James Shav, and Henry Edward Miles were charged with absenting themselves without leave from the steamer Eakaia. Defendants made excuses to the effect that they had had permission to be absent from the vessel for a while. Chief-Detective Brobere said that it might be well to regard the threoas having pleaded not guilty. The Eakaia -was uow at Lyttelton, and the mon could appear at the Court there in thb morning. His Worship remanded them to appear at Lyttelton to-day.

STRONG LANGUAGE. Henry Edwards was charged with drunkenness and using bad language. He said that he was not drunk, but was excited ; and also that he did not remember using tho language to which the charge referred. However, ho supposed that ho had better [dead guilty. Sub-Inspector Shcehan stated that Edwards had a daughter in the employment of a certain Wellingtonian, and had been ft source of annoyance to her on Monday morning. In the- evening ho (Edwards)'had repeated the offence, and had been remonstrated with by the daughter's employer. In tho street near tho house Edwards had used bad language. "The language," said tho SubInspector, "was very strong for a time, and the neighbours in the locality had to close their doors." Edwards was convicted of drunkenness, and discharged. On tho other charge he was fined £i, in default twenty-one days' imprisonment. ■ '• OTHER CASES. Committing an net intended to insult a woman was alleged against Alfred Nelson, who was remanded till March 6. For insobriety Matthew Boyd was fined 10s.