MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1821, 6 August 1913, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

SOLACE OF OPIUM,

CASE OF AN AILING CHINESE. At tho Magistrate's Court yesterday a Chines© named Ah Loo was fined J!5 on a charge of his having 6moked opium on July 31, and £5 for having had in his possession opium in a form suitable for smoking. In' each instance the default W ir a - TS ' imprison lllol1 '- , , Hislop, who appealed ns counsel, for Ah Loo, said that tho circumstances were extenuating as the reason why_ the man smoked opium was that lie was m an advanced stag© of consumption. He'got some relief by smoking. It was pointed out that Ah Loo might have obtained a doctor's certificate entitling him, on account of his malady, 10 6moke opiuin. t To this Mr. Hislop replied that his client was ignorant of that phase of the law. THE POLICE NOT SUED. ,^ <:o . wail Smith was accused of ■vi"' °/ overcoat, valued at £2 V s '' belonging to Edward Heaphy; and, also, of tho theft of a five-guinea camera belonging to Donald M'C'askill. Inspector Hcndrey informed tho Court that tho case hinged on identification, and that the identification of Smith had not been entirely satisfactory. 110 did not, therefore, propose to proceed with the case. Smith, who had pleaded not guilty, was thereupon discharged. POLICE ODDS t ENDS. .Tames Thompson Allsop' was fined £.1 and ordered to pay «£1 in restitution for haying damaged the door of a hotel to which he was endeavouring to gain entrance late on Monday night. • John William Lucas was fined £2 for having stolen a cruet from a restaurant. Henry M'Kenzis, a seaman oh the s.s. Waliine, appeared on n charge of his having disobeyed the lawful command of tho chief engineer of the vessel. A remand till to-day was made. • insobriety John Barrett was fined CIVIL SIDE. JUDGMENT ORDER DISCHARGED. Judgment was .delivered by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in.'a case in which the parties were Ellis and Manton, judgment creditors; W.. E. Scanlon, judgment debtor; Casey and Hayes, sub-debtors. The caso arose out of a judgment order for X 39 10s. Tho judgment creditors 'claimed from the sub-debtor. the amount, of a judgment duo by them to tho judgment debtor. . Against this was set up: an assignment to certain creditors of the judgment debtors, and the question .was whether the judgment creditor' cpul.d .. attach the money, or whether' thby had been properly assigned by tho judgment debtor to his creditors, so as to place it,beyond tho reach of the judgment creditors, Messrs, Ellis and Manton.. The. caso involved ojv interesting law point as to whether first a judgment order takes precedence of an equitable assignment; and secondly whether, sinco the assign-ment-by tho judgment debtor..was in favour of only three creditors, the assign-, nient was void as tending to hinder or defeat the judgment creditors' claim. In his judgment, his Worship said that he thought that tho assignment was an absolute ono and left nothing'to be attached. 'He discharged tho judgment order. ....

PROMISSORY KOTE. ' Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., delivered judgment for plaintiffs in.tho action of the Dominion Pressure Milking Machine Co., LW., v. Lovell and James, a matter of a claim for -£160 17s. 4t1., the total amount of ten promissory notes. The defendants had disputed tins claim on the ground that. certain machinery was not satisfactory. WHO PAYS THE RATES? Alfred Fortune sued Ellen Plight for -£14 10s. in respect of rates which plaintiff said ho had paid in defendant's behalf under a contract for sale. The defendant disputed the contention that the present position of the transaction rendered him liable for the amount. Mr. G. H. Fell appeared for the plaintiff, amd Mr. T. C. A.. Hislop for tha defendant. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., reserved decision. DEFAULT DEBTORS. In the following eases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by defaultGeo. nill v. C. 11. W. Dixon, £1 Bs'. 6d„ costs 10s.; Gamble and Son v. Thomas Green, .£5 10s., and .£1 3s. Gd.; E. G. Dun and Co. v. Ellen Dunn, .65 ss. 3d., and .CI 3s. Gd.; Thomas Clarence Howard Nicholls v. Herbert Collyns, wCI3 19s. Id., and ,£1 10s. 6d.; H. Kalm v. James Barnes, £'1 13s. 3d., and 125.; J. B. Clarkeon and Co., Ltd., v. W. G. Hart, JEIB lGs: Gd., and 155.; Wellington Publishing Co., Ltd., v.Batson and Co.,' 10s„ and 55.; Tanner Bros., Ltd., v.- W. A. East, costs only, 75.; Wellington. Publishing Company v. W. Chamberlain, .£l7 lGs. Bd., and 155.; Laery and Co., Ltd. v. Sheldon Kindly, M 7s. 7d.,- and 10s.; William H. Suckling v. Nellie Stephens. ,£3 ss. 6d„ and 10s.; samo v. Robert Erskine, XII, and .£1 10s. Gd.; Wellington Traders Agency v. Q. C. Mockler, ,£3 lis. 6d., and ill 3s. 6d.; W. H. Suckling v. Susan Corcoran, JB6 25., and XI 3s. 6d.