MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2471, 26 May 1915, Page 11

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

OLD MAN'S RECORD

OVER EIGHTY CONVICTIONS

A record of eighty previous convictions, i mostly for theft, and not including some fifteen convictions for theft in Australia, was the record of John Power, a limn ot 62 years of age, who appeared before Mr. D. Ci. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, and pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of six suits of pyjamas, valued at 275., from Messrs. George and Kersley. Accused only caino out of prison on Saturday last, and on Monday he stole the pyjamas, and offered them to a cab-drivcr. The "cabbie" became suspicious, and made some inquiries, and these resulted in Power being apprehended. Some of his previous sentences were for terms up to three years, and his long record did not give the Magistrate much hope that he would keep his promise if Riven a ligiit sentence. Accused pleaded hard to be given another chance. and said he would never come before the Court again. As he had not got far with his liberty a light sentence of one month's imprisonment was imposed. BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. The long memory of the law was further shown in the charge against M. Preston, that in July, 1912, he presented a valueless cheque for £2 10s. to a Ponsonby (Auckland; bootmaker, and received a pair of boots and .£1 (is. Gd. in chainje. Accused pleaded guilty, and Chief I)e----tective Boddam eaid that be was sentenced this year for a similar offence, and only last month was before the Supreme Court and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for false pretences. He was serving that sentence now. The Magistrate imposed a further term of six months' imprisonment, to be commenced on the expiry of the present sentence. DRUNKENNESS. For drunkenness Thos. Watson was fined 10s„ in default 4S hours' imprisonment, and two first offenders were convicted and discharged. ; A MOTOR-CYCLE AGENCY. Mr. W. G. Biddell, S.JL, delivered reserved judgment in a claim for .£l5O damages brought by N. H. Jack, indent agent, Wellington, against Kemsley and Co. Proprietary, Ltd., Christchurch. Plaintiff, in liis claim, asserted that the ■ defendant assuming to be the agent of Messrs. Tozer, Keinsley and Fisher, Ltd., of London (representatives in England for the Sparkbrook Manufacturing, Limited), induced 'him to enter into a contract with defendants for tho supply of one six horse-power Sparkbrook motorcycle, on the terms that the plaintiff should have the option of the agency for the North Island within ono month after the arrival of the motor-cycle. It subsequently appeared t'hat the defendants had no power to fix up the agency w;ith the defendant, and the firm in England cancelled the contract. In the course of the judgment His Worship said that from the correspondence it could bo gathered that defendants had authority to negotiate with plaintiff, but when tho option was offered the Starbrook Co. had already disposed of the agency without notifying the defendants of the fact. Plaintiff had suffered some loss, but it was due quite as much to his own err«neons anticipation as to the failure of defendant's principals to carry out the contract entered into through defendant's agency. Plaintiff based his action on a breach of warranty of authority on the part of tho defendants. but upon the evidence submitted His Worship wns unablo to come to that conclusion, and consequently the cases relied on by plaintiff's counsel did not help him. Plaintiff was non-suited, with costs d£9 3s. 6d. Mr. A. M. Salelc appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. AY. Blair for the defendants. SHARES IN A SECRET PROCESS. • A case embodying some unusual features was heard by Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in which Emily Van Breda, of Pulmerstpn North, proceeded against Sidney Robjohns East, formerly of Wellington, and now of Auckland, for recovery of the sum of £40. In the statement of claim plaintiff set out (1) that in or about November, 1910, the defendant obtained from her the sum of <£40, as purchase money for 100 sharps in an alleged syndicate known as tho Blaine Waterproofing Process Syndicate; (2) the money was by defendant from pinint'iff by fffneans of certain representations as follow: (a) That one Blaine had invented a secret process for waterproofing materials; (b) that a syndicate had been formed for the exploitation of the process; (c) that tne defendant was the owner of certain interests in the process entitling him to dispose of 100 Shares in the syndicate to tho plaintiff; (d and e) that certain persons (named) had invested money in the syndicate; (f) that the Kaiapoi Woollen Company had been using the process for some months, and desired to purchase it; to) that the syndicate had already sent an agent to Denmark to dispose of the rights over the process in tlmt country. 1 laintiff alleged that the representations were false, and made for the purpose of obtaining the ,£4O. She further allied that no such syndicate had ever existed In her evidence plaintiff said that defendant had offered to pay' her money back, and had later declined. She had niadg inquiries to 566 it tho Kaiaiwi Company had taken up the process, and tound that they would ml have anything to do with it. Cross-examined, witness would not swear that Jlr. Blaine had not invented a wnterproonuig process, and would not swear ithat a syndicate had not been formed to exploit the process. She would not swear that an .agent was not sent to .Denmark. She understood that defendant and Mr. Blaine had gone to England to float the concern. i 1, J ac ,k~ oll defendant; She would not swear that she did not still have a «£io interest in the concern. (representing plaintifi): She had never had anv s«'rin tor the shares. James G. Watson, master mariner, called _ iov the plaintiff, in cross-examination, S'iid that Maine did have sonio process. lie would not swear that plaintiff did not have an interest in the concern. He had bought an interest for JMO, and the offer was made for him to .vll back at .£IOO. Ee did not take advantage of that oner until it was too late. He had lo accept that offer before East left for Ei.gland. Further evidence was called by Jlr. Kirkcaldie to tho effect that the witness had not authorised to' represent that lie was putting money into the process. , Further hearing of tho case was adjourned till Thursday, when the defence will be taken. QUESTION OP AGENCY. Charles A. il'Lc-an, wool-buyer, was the plaintiff in an action against George Foreman, sheepfarmer, of Gladstone. Plaintiff ulaimed that 'the defendant, through his agents, Messrs. Dalgety and Co., sold him his clip at 9 3-sd. for ffeeees and 4d. for locks. There were 71 bales of fleeces. The sale was effected, but owing to an objection lo one of the conditions, delivery of the wool was refused, and defendant sold his wool through other channels at an increased price. The condition was in connection i with the allowance made on bales of wool for what is known as "tare and draught." Plaintiff being deprived of the wool, which he intended for the London market, , claimed „C 197 7s. Bd., being tho difference between the price which was lo have been paid by defendant, and the amount the j wool might reasonably have been ex- j peeled to realise in London. Mr. P. .1. Ifollings for the defence, said that the whole question was one of agency. There was a denial that a contract exited. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiff. , Decision was reserved. 1 ACCUMULATION OF HOLIDAYS. 1 The Lat'iur Department proceeded i against !'. N. MTarland, licensee of the i Tramway Hotel, Newtown, for employing three barmen during a recent week, with- 1 nut giving tlieni a half-holiday. The ease ! was binnsht ti emphasise tho fact that j j half-holiday leave must, not be allowed , to arenmulate, lor in this case the ac- | tun uJuted leave was allowed in Ihe t'ol- j

lowing weeks. Tho Magistrate thought it was a ease for a noininal [lonaHy, which lie fixed a I 10 s. UNDEFENDED CASES. .Judgment for plaintill by default;, wafi given in the following uiideleiided case*:— i) union Rubber Co. of Australasia, Ltd., v. E. C. Young, m 15a., costs .£2 to. Cel.; Hilliard Clijis. Cooper v. Sirs. A. Jackson, -CIO, costs J-'l Ms. Gil.; Wollinglon Dairy Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd. v. Arnold levies, XSJ las. costs ja 17s. Gil.;. U ; . fi -l" 1 •' l ' 1 ;- laiul v. Henry Staliiud, X'l7 .Is. lid., costs ill 10 s. Gil.; Alexander M'Neill Proctor v. I'. Walker, «LI, costs 35.; W. H. James v- Alfred Sear e, £1 Bs. ad., costs 55.; W. I. Nash v D. Anderson, J;:! lis. Kid., costs Kb.; D. l\ ilson v. L'Co. Smith, X' 7 IK ss. 6(1.; same v. Henry Evans, «fcl os. bu., costs 55.; Whitcombe «»d J'. vl ",. v ' . ' llorley, £2 55., costs 10s.; Wellington Motor Car, Horse-drivers and Liyei.\ Stable Employees' Union v. Allreil Chamberlain, .61 10s., costs 55.; same v. Hoary Wilson, JBI as., costs ss. J snmo r. Ueo. Wright, .£1 (is., costs 55.; H. Koljer v. Sydney T. Vincont, J:0 Ss., costs .11 <is. Gd ;B. S. Ferguson v. j ns ' Haddock, & 175., costs 125.; .Messrs. Jerusalem and Co. v. Messrs. Niivp and Co., .EG. j-osl .£1 3. Gil.; David M'Kae v. B. Ci. MuWis, £■> lis., exists 123.; Michael Andrew.- v. Arthur David Blick and Cailiorine lillck, JJ7.