MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1518, 14 August 1912, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) ' LAW VERBIAGE, 6YER THE CASSELLS LETTER. MYSTERY OF "J\ MORRIS." Mention of a recent ruse by a Wellington defective figured somewhat extensively in a judgment which was delivered by Mr. Riduell in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. This was a case in which Scott and Martimlale were charged with having published a betting notification, and tiic effort of the detective office had been to arrive at Scott and Martimlale by means of certain letters signed Morris." During the hearing it was mentioned that what is known (in the weird phraseology of the track) as a "whisper" had got round among the brotherhood, and, consequently, the intention..of the detcctive office had not really rc-ached out so far as had been intended.

Tho magistrate said that the evidence disclosed that, on July 12, Detective Cassells (using tho assumed namo of "J. Morris") had written to Scott and Martimlale, asking them to post to him at tho Railway Hotel, Lower Jlutt, a "double" betting card on the Wellington and Clirislchurch meetings. That, card had b;en posted, and also printed matter reluhug to belting on tbo Wellington Sleeplcr.hnso and tho "Winter Hurdles. Detoctive Caw-ells lmd rcccived this reply on July 18 from Mrs. JJwver, the wif'o of tho proprietor of the Ra'ilway Hotel. In tho course of evidence, "Detective Cassells asserted that he really knew no person residing at Lower Hutt bearing the name of "J. Morris." Scott and Martindaio had admitted sending the betting chart, but had said that it had • been posted to a client of theirs, who was really uamcd Morris, and had not becri intended for the detective or for any other person "bearing a fictitious name.''. .1 he magistrate went on to state' that .evidence of, the existence of a real "Morris," as deposed to by Scott and Martindale, had been mrogi-e, and they had, in fact", admitted that they had never seen him. They had, also, admitted that some considerable time had elapsed since they had "done business" with him. At the hearing of the case, Sir John Findlav, the lawyer who appeared for Scott aud Martimlale, had argued that the "Morris" letter really belonged to his clicnli', and that Detective Cassells had had no right to open it:. It had bsen intended for a "J. Morris," • who really existed in fact.

His Worship (lid not (hint that thes facts helped Scott and Mnrtindale. "Th claim of ownership alone," he said, "i t not sufficient to clear defendants of lia , bility' for publication. The evidenc 3 shows," ho continued, "that fron Scott and Martindale's meagre knowlcds 5 of "Morris" they could not ho ccrtai: ; that the application for a batting char ■ had como from! him, although tlioy hoi t wj reason for assuming that it was sc l Thar ready response to tlio applicatio: • showed that thoy intended publishing th information contained in the chart io'ih . person requesting it. and tlmt persoi ! actually received it, although writing un : <ler an assumed name. ■His Worship concluded with the obser i ration that the word "publish" had beei ; dismissed in (ho case of Scott ami an other v. Kemp, and that on tho author i ity of that case ho thought that Scott am ; Mnrtindale must bo convictcd. Defendants were fined .£3, with conr - costs vs. Leave of appeal was granted [ and tho sscurity was feed at JEB Bs. OTHER CASES. Layshon Williams was fined .£2 for hav ' ing resisted a constable in the exceutior ' of his duty. Fct insobriety, Ruby Kirk was fined s's ■ Alexander Wilhelmson 10s., Williair M'Leod J!l, and James Laing 10s. Edwahl Warans was sentenced to oik month's imprisonment on a charge of hi: having deserted the steamer Ilurunui oi May 2. Timothy Donovan was fined JI3 for hav> ing committed a certain act. ■'A girl of It years was convicted on tve charges of tlio theft of mousy. Sho waf f»at to Mount Magdala Hoino for twe yen rs, and her parents were required tc refund the money stolen. ' CIVIL CASES, WHAT THE BOARDER OWED. Margaret M'Cormick, boardinghcu?c. keejier. sued Claude l'ocock, labourer, for Xh) inch was .said to be duo in ipannrnt of board and lodgings.: .Mr. IT. E. .\iul?rson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr \\. 1. Ward lor tho defendant. Records were not produced bv either parly. Defenannt. admitted owin" £8 J?3., and j'ldjment was entered for plaintiff for that amount. SEWING MACHINE HIRE.. Oscar Hcwett and Co., Ltd. sued Lbz.ibeth Hardy for d's 38s. ns the amount due tor hire of a sewing machine. Mr H. L. Anderson appeared for plaintiff. Defendant was not represented. After hearing evidence, his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff company lor the amount claimed. THE CASH REGISTER. (Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) The National Cash Register Oompanv of Australasia, Ltd., Wellington, claimed £19 from Frederick Williams, baker and grocer,. Christchurch, alleged to be due as three months' hire of a cash register at a raro of ,£6 6s. Sd. per month. 0 'Mr' T 'Av X( t V t i or ( , h ® Plaintiff; and Mr. J. J. M'Grath for defendant Defendant Williams disputed ,the claim on the ground that tho machine, which ho had been supplied with was hot a new one. His Worship decided in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs .£3 7s. UNDEFENDED CASES. In tho following eases judgment was entered for plaintiffs by default:—The Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Ltd., v. Paora Niania, .£7 10s„ costs .£1 18s. Gd.; C. Smith, Ltd. ,v. Catherine M. Tutschka, ss. and 25.; .lam'es Smith Relink Ward ' 4-' ,0s - s<l - and' os.; Official Assignee v. George I«mpnrd, >£22 15s. Bd. and ,£2 Ss.; William Hobbs v. George W. Van Slvlce, £91 ll" 4d. and M 17s. j 11. Kahn (Irndin? as Le Marche) v. A. T. Anderson, .£1 9s. Gd. and 5?.; J. T. Horn (ns assignee o'f H E Gibbs) v. William Cooke, ,£1 Bs. Cd. and 55.; Pritehard and Mitchell P. Ward <C 3 IG=. lid.- and ill 3*. Gd.; A,nnie Casey v. Arthur Jones and Mrs. Jones, ,£3 and i3s.; Frederick James Pinny v. W. P. Moot<?' ;£8 and i3l 3=. Gd.; same v. Mrs. W. Jl! Stokes, £2 10s. and Us.; A. Gvles and Son v, W. J. Thompson, 15s. and 5-.; Charles Albert Innes v. James StevcmsoiL .£3 11=. lOd. and 10s.; Nutrieia Mill: Co. v. Agnes Jackson, £1 ft#. 'Sd. and 5 s.; Thomas Jirierley v. William John Lover; i'j 13s. and £1 ss. Gd.; Rhimes and Co. v. R. Hei.drv, 17s. Gd. and 5;.; John Duthie and Co.. Ltd.. v. Hairy Hill. ,£2.'i Ss. and ,£1 35.; Rhimes and Co*, v. Pihopa JTo'ivea, .£2 10s. and 155.; same v. reter Taipuo, aJJ G;. 3d. and 175.: Wellington Dairy, Ltd.. >■, Margsret M'Cwiuick, X 2 3s. Gd. md 12s.