LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1434, 8 May 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

THE HOPE CASE. POLICEMAN FOR MANY YEARS. ASSUMED NAME. GROG CHARGE STIEETED nOME. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court wero continued yesterday beforo Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. It. 11. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, represented tho Crown. Tho first business of the Court was to hear tho defence in the case in which James Henry Hope, occupier of a shop in Iho Columbia buildings, Lower Cuba Street, was charged with having sold beer, to Constable Wallace on March .'ll without being licensed to do so, and without being exempted under tho Licensing Act of I'JOS. The caso came beforo a jury on account of the fact that accused, having been more than once previously convicted of "sly grog-selling," had tho right of election. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for tho accused. Particulars of the case for the Crown were published yesterday. Hope went into the witness-box yesterday and flatly denied having sold liquor to tho constable, lie admitted having given him one glass of Ix'er, but declared that no money had passed. During the course of cross-examination by Air. Ostler, Hope stated that tile evidence of the police was untrue regarding sale, nml also regarding a conversation that passed between the police officers and himself. He stated that ho had been in New Zealand about three years and four months, having come here from Sydney. Mr. Ostler: You were in the ■ police force over there? Accused: I was a constable for 37 years and G months. Mr. Ostler: How came you to leave? Accused replied that he had got into ■ trouble and had had to leave. He admitted that he was not going under his right name at present. . Mr. Ostler: Why did you change.your name? Mr. Jackson objected to tho question on tlio ground that the present charge did not warrant the Crown Prosecutor going into details so- far back. Ilis Honour held that the question might be asked. Accused had imputed perjury to one if not three, police officers, anil it was necessary to ascertain something cf his character. Subsequently Jfopo stated that 110 had changed his mime so as not to disgrace his family. He admitted that ho left tho Sydney police with a "bad character," but his offence had,not been what would be called a disgraceful one. Another witness was called, but did not appear, and Mr. Jackson closed tho caso without further witnesses. The jury retired at 12.45 p.m. and returned at 2.5 p.m., announcing that they had not agreed. His Honour: Is there any difficulty in which I can assist you? Tlio foreman: One juror is standing ont. He is quite convinced that defendant sold liquor, but— — His Honour interrupted for tho purpose of stating that he did not wish to know any details. Tho jury must retire again. At a quarter to 4 o'clock the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Passing of sentence was deferred until this morning. THE MUSIC TEACHER. RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY. A music-teacher, named Arthur Joseph Wicks, v;as charged with assault on a girl 14 years of age. The clt'enco was alleged to have taken place at accused's residence in Riddiford Street, on February 1. Mr. A. L. Hcrdman appeared for Wicks, who pleaded not guilty. Tho Court was cleared during (he hearing of evidence. - The jury retired".at six minutes to 5' o'clock, and returned an hour later. On being asked if a verdict had been agreed on, the foreman was proceeding to state that there wero "eleven for," when his Honour interrupted that there should be no mention.of numbers. At 9 p.m.- the jury returned again with a verdict of guilty, and added a strong recommendation to mercy. MASTERTON CASES. SLANDER SUIT PREFERRED. Argument in a Masterton case of alleged slander was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Edwards. The parties were Sarah Emma Armstrong, widow, of Carterton, plaintiff, and Charles Bowles, farmer, of Waihakeke, I defendant, and the claim was for ,£5Ol damages. Mr. A. Gray, with Mr. Coleman Phillips. appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. L. Hollings for the defendant. The slander was alleged to liave been contained in statements made by the defendant in December last and in January last. The action first came on in Master'ton on March 22. After several witnesses had been heard, Mr. Hollings applied for a non-suit on the grounds that tho statements alleged to have been made wero privileged. His Honour declined to non-suit, but reserved decision on tho question of privilege. After witnesses for the defence had been heard, the jury retired, and returned with a verdict for plaintiff, (o whom they awarded .£IOO damages. His Honour did not enter up judgment, but reserved the case for further consideration in AYellington, where the question of privilege raised by counsel for the defence could be argued. Argument was heard on the point yesterday, when Mr. Hollings again moved for a non-suit. His Honour reserved decision. Claim for Possession. In the Supremo Court, before Mr. Justic? Edwards, lesal argument was lioard in the case in which Francis Hood claimed to recover from Robert Harry Holo the possession of a farm, which he alleged had been so'd to Hole during his (Hood's) absence in England. Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for Hood, anil Mr. A. W. Blair for Hole. Evidence had been heard in Masterton on March 23, and again at a sitting iiu Wellington on Saturday last. His Honour gave judgment for theplainliff for possession. Plaintiff v;as ordered to refund -C3OO paid to Tuis son, but not iIOO credited to defendant in resncct of commission, mesne nrofits to be the .subject of further consideration.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

(Before Dr. 51' Arthur, S.M.) THE TEAM SYSTEM. TAILORING FIRM PENALISED. At the Magistrate's Court .yesterday, the Inspector of Awards (Mr. D. Carmody) proceeded against George Davies, Ltd., tailors, Wellington, for allowing bespoke work to lie done under tho team system, and for allowing work to bo done elsewhere than on their own premise-. On both informations the inspector claimed it penalty of .£lO. The inspector stated that defendant had a factory in Blair Street, in which shop orders were supposed to be executed. Part of those premises were rented by C. CaOiie iMi'i Sons, who executed slop orders. On April 3 an order was taken at defendants' premises in Willis Street, and it was subsequently executed by employees of Cathie and Sons. This, the inspector claimed, was the team system—work divided up among various employees, most of it done by machine, and, consequently, done quickly. . , . The Wellington manager of the defendant firm pleaded guilty. Dr. M'Arthur, S.JI.: You know that this point was i'ought out in the case ol Ivii'koahlie and Stains', and fought.out: prolty well, too. And now you arc introducing tiiibusine-s again. Defendants'-manager: The experiment was really a new oue rejsrdiu? tlu worjt,

Dr. M'Artluir: Oh, nonsense! It's the team svstenr all over. His Worship lined defendants Xa on each charge. HOTEL DEAL. A QUESTION OF CONTRACT. (Before Mr. AV. G. Kiddell. S.3L) Judgment was given yesterday in the case of D. 31. Poison v. W. .1. Jorgensen. l'laiutifl" claimed from defendant XiiO, an amount deposited with defendant's solicitors on December 5. 1011, in connection with the proposed purchase of furniture, stock, ctc., 11l defendant's hotel. Defendant couiiteieliiimed for .£12.") 12s. Gd., as damages alleged to have been sustained by him through tire failure and the refusal of plaintiff to. complete a contract; to purchase the defendant's furniture in the Grand National Hotel at l'ctone for .£IOO. His Worship said that he was not satisfied that defendant had proved the existence of a contract which defendant said had been entered into between tho parties. Judgment on the claim was for plaintilt for X-iO and interest X 1 Is. Defendant was non-suited on the counter-claim. At Iho hearing Mr. T. C. Hislop appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ,T. J. M'Grath for the defendant. "KEYS AND HANDLES." (Before Dr. 31' Arthur, 5.31.) Judgment was delivered by Dr. M'Artluir, M.3L, in the ease in which Hughes and another sued Casellwrg and Co. for XI,". lis. 3d., the balance of an account for goods supplied. Payments made into Court reduced the amount to X 8 lis. Id. It appeared that on the face of the contract for the supply of goods, the words "keys and handles" had been written. Defendant contended that "keys and handles" were part of the contract, and plaintiff alleged that they were to bo extras, and that the words had only beon written on tho contract as a reminder. His Worship said that the words should not have been written on the face of the contract if they were only to act as a reminder, and that it would have been •easy to write: "Keys and handles extra." lie declared in favour of defendant, on the ground that where evidence was of equal weight "lie must suffer by whose action tho dispute has arisen." Judgment was for plaintiff for tho amount paid into court. . Mr. A 7. R. Meredith represented tho plaintiff at the hearing, and Mr. T. C. ( Hislop represented the defendant. THE A3IATEUR ARCHITECT. In tlie case in which H. E. Manning claimed XBO 13s. Gd. from H. C. Clark and Mrs. XI. C. Clark, judgment was delivered by Dr. 31' Arthur, S.M. The amount was sail to be duo respecting alterations which plaintiff made to defendant's house. The specifications foi .the work had been drawn up by, an amateur, tho son of the defendants. Judgment was for the plaintiff for X 39 ■las. • Mr. A. Blair was counsel for the plain: tiff, and Mr. 31. Myers counsel for the defendants.

ADEQUATELY PAID. Gcorgo Knopp, of Tawa Flat, sued G. Kodgers, tailor, Wellington, for JEI lis. 2d., which plaintiff alleged was due for work ho had done to defendant's house. Plaintiff conducted his case himself, and lie. J. J. M'Grath appeared i'or defendant. After hearing the parties. Dr. M'Arthur said that he considered that plaintiff had been adequately paid for the work. Judgment was. for the defendant. • UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following cases judgment was entered for tho plaintiff by default:— llcnry Bodlcy v. Edgar Shaw, .£2 18s. 10d„ costs 10s.; Christopher O'Shea v. Alfred Smith, X 3 »s„ costs 10s.; .Tames Smith, Ltd., v. Gertrude Hanornh Gibson, X 7 2s. Gd., costs 55.; samo v. Alex ilitcheli, ,£lB lis., costs 175.; 31, Kendall v. .Tos Sharrock. las. Gd., costs .£3 Us.; same v. 11. J. Harding, .S3 3s„ costs Ills.; b'obert Martin, Ltd., v. Henry Martin, Xlti Ms. 8(1., costs XI 10s. (id.; Wry and C 0.,. Ltd., v. 11. J. Harris, .£9 3s. 10d., costs Bs.; ■ 13. Ueynolds ana C 0.,. Ltd., v. N. P. Nielsen, .£ll 3s. sd„ costs A'l lis,; A. J. 3laco v. Harney AVilliams, .£2 3s. 2d., costs 155.; Maria Thornton v. AV. S. Jenkins, £7 45., costs 3s. Gd.; the Wellington Traders' Agency, assignees Kempthornc, I'rosser Now Zealand Drug Co., Ltd., v. ,T. 11. Bain, JESIG fls. 2d., costs ,C 2 lis.: L. Caselbcrg and Co., Ltd., v. Kobert Frederick Young, J!1 75., costs 55.; Arthur 31. Holmes v. Charles 11. Higg, XI, costs 55.; and Andrew Avison and Harry W. 'Williams v. George and Emily Girliiig-Butcher, X 0 15s. 7d., costs XI Cs. Gd. JUDG3IENT SUMMONSES. In the case Rilstone versus i<hv ':'O, defendant was ordered to pay .£•! Cs. 6d. by Jlav 21. Thomas Inch was ordered to pay XI 15s. to Thomas Tago by May 21. In the case of Samuel Brown, Ltd., v. Thomas Tyree, a claim for XI Gs., judgment debtor was ordered to pay flic amount by 3fay 21.' POLICE CASE. Eobcrt Hertrv Steel was fined 10s. by Jlr. AV. G. Kiddell, 5.31., for assaulting William Charles Ncrris.