MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 32, 1 November 1918, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mr. P. V. Frazer, SIM., presided at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, and dealt with a miscellaneous lot of eases.Por insobriety two first offenders were each fined 55., in default it hours' imprisonment. Harold J anies Crawford pleaded guilty to the theft of a case of whisky, value £•[ Js., the property of the Wellington Harbour Board. Mr. E. V. Hay appeared for the accused, and stated that \\i& case was, ho thought, one for probation. The accused was employed on the wharf i'e-r a few days, and on the day in question he went ,to the wharf to get his wages. Ho had been drinking during the day, and was very much under the influence of liquor. The offence was committed in broad daylight. Ho had a good character before he went to tho war, and he, received an excellent, military discharge. He thought the ease was one for probation. The Magistrate said that thieving on the wharf should bo severely punished, but in this case it was evident that the lad lifiil had too much liquor, and his act was obviously that of a drunken man. As he was cnrployed for a few days only, the question of trust did not arise., as in I lie case of a watersidcr. lie thought he was justified in treating the case as a drunken freak. Crawford.was admitted .to probation for a period of three years under statutory conditions, and with the special conditions that the accused was not to accept or leave employment without the consent of tin Probation Officer, and a prohibition order was issued against him for the period of his probation. Wong Lee Hung pleaded guilty to smoking opium, also with having iu,his possession opium suitabla for smoking. On the latter charge ho was fined ,£5 and costs, and on the first charge ho wis convicted and discharged. The Inspector of Awards' (Mr. ft. T. Hailey) proceeded against H. W. Oben, licensee of the Shuinrock Hotel, for faili'ug to pay an employee'the award rate. Judgment was given for plaiutilf for £,! ami costs.

Judgment was giv'en for plaintiff in the f following undefended cases:—Herbert P. ! Bsiwson, v. Charles Stevens, lis. (id., costs only; A. Hatrick and Co., Ltd., v. James j Leach, .£U5s. fid., costs 75.; W. T. John- i son and Co., Ltd., v. W. H. Lowers, £1 \ 175., costs only; Commercial '■ Agency, i Ltd., and Alcock and Co., Ltd., v.'Neil'; Johnson, .£7 Its.. 7d., casts .£l. 3s. fid.; I same v. D. Al'Kinnon, 10s'. 7d., costs 55.;» same and E. W. Mills nnd Co., Ltd., v. i AV. M'Cullough, £1 Us. lfld., costs only; ' T. Isaacs and Co. v. Victor Edgar, lfs. 3d., costs only: Karon Borough Council v. John A. Bradley and Stanley \V. Bind- <■ ley, ,£1 12s. 2d., costs 195.; the Griffiths i Kogors Patent Gas Meter Co. v. W. A. 1 Chambers, l(ls., costs as.; Dunbar Sloane v. Caroline A. Wallace (separate estate), £\ Is., costs Gs.

Sarah Andrews was ordered to deliver up possession of a dwelling.liouso to Edwin Miller by November il, and to pav £\ 12s. costs. The New Zealand Express Co. proceeded against J. Cnmmings on a claim for wC7 Is. fid., and there was a counter-claim for expenses caused through the nllcgcd failure of the company to deliver the goods within- the specified time. Judgment, was given for plaintiff for .£5 lis. fid. on the claim, and for defendant for .Cs' oil Hie couliter-claim,.