MAGISTRATE'S- COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1560, 2 October 1912, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S- COURT.

•■' '.. • •:(Before.;TJr. '. . f '.;:!' THE DYNAMO. '• ..Turnbull, .Tories and Co.', electrical engineers, Wellington,'sued Henry Morgan and Alfred Craig Hansen, picture theatre .proprietors,, AYestport, for JC17.'.15., lid., which-amount was alleged to bo duo: for .'repairs to a Westinghouse dynamo. Defendants counter-claimed for ,£lO 03. 9d.' They-'said that they had suffered this 'amount in damages through delays and expenses incurred because of the plaintins not having fulfilled the specifications relating to tho dynamo. Mr.. A. Blair appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. ll> K. Kirkcaldie for the defendants. i' After hearing evidence, his Worship reserved decision. . , . ■ ■ : ';■>■ . .TJNDEFE4\'DED CASES. In the following cases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default:— .-.Guiller'mo and' Co.' v. 'Laurence , Al'Carthy, .£2 17s. Bd., and costs 10s.; W. E. Toinlin v. Harry Jenkins, 6s. 9d., and lte.; Robert G. Denton v. Arthur Kale, .£6 19s. 3d., and .£1 Si. Cd.; State Guaranteed Advances Office'v. A. M. and W. H. Ivamsljottoni-Islierwood, £\b ISs. 7d., and XI ,25.; John Stephens v. Seymour D..G , .. Grant, £'J 10s., and .CI .'ls. 6d.; Government .Insurance Commissioner v. George Brocklehurst, J;l2 165., and los. nd.;, Mary Sinclair v. E, Welsby, JEI3 2s. 9d., and £1 lls. 6d.; Nellie St. Leger v. L. •Hill, £2 9sl, a'ud 10s.; Champion Company, Ltd., v. W. Abrahams. ,£2 55., and 10s.'; The Wellington Publishing Co., iLt.d.. v. Frank Whwler Uodson. £i 10s., and 10s.; Rhimes and Co. v. Valentine E. ■Hitchings, M 2s. od., and 10s.; Phelps. Wilson and Co. v. Alexander Murchie, Ml 2s. (id., and .£2 I+s.; George, Doughty and Co. .v. 3ohn Hendry; Sd.*.and' 12s. ;; ; JUDGMENT SUMMONS. ' ; John Tofts was ordered to pay Eman.ul'l Solomons, .69 Bs. Gd., by October 15. V '.-' ' POLICE BUSINESS.. '■':". (Before Mr. *\Y. Gilßfddell, S.M.) - For insobriety, Ada Edwards was fined' .£% Allan M'Phee ,10s., and William Brew -JBl.' A m'ohibitkm order was issued against Brew. V Thomas Maslin. was fined .£2 for his '.having resisted a constable who arrested '.him on : a-charge of insobriety; and Ed'ward Stollery was fined £,1 for having interfered in the matter, and ;£3 for having used certain language on the occasion. .».'■, ' ' '■• • ' i •■ Jacobus '. was. trued .£3 for his i;h'aving broken a prohibition order.