MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, 14 March 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

POLICE CASES. The police business at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning was dealt with by Mr. E. Page, S.M.'

For insobriety, ,T. Ilogan was fined 10s. Charles Jl'Gliirry was charged with being an idle and disorderly person. It was said by the police that the caso was one of misfortune. JPGnrry, a seaman, who had landed here suffering from an internal complaint, had been unable to obtain work, and could not get treatment for his complaint, and was dependent for his food on some vessels in port. M'Garry was remanded for a week.

Thomas Myers, who pleaded guilty to tho theft of a portmanteau which containproperty valued at .£2O, was sentenced to two years' reformative treatment. Henry Haywood, a man with a family, who admitted tho theft of a leg of mutton worth 55., was fined .£5, in default one month's imprisonment. The fine may be paid at the rate of 10s. per week.

CIVIL CASES. Mr. W. 6. Riddell, S.M.. gave judgment for plaintiff by default in the following undefended civil cases: William Henry Nimmo v. A. C. Stephenson, Jill ■Is. 7d„ costs i! 2 Os. Od.; Thomas K* Garratt v. Mrs. A. Green (against separate estate), <£2, costs 125.; Osmond and Son (N.Z.), Ltd., v. ,T. Dickson, 10s. 3d., costs 10s.; Mrs. E. Smith v. C. I'age, 10s., costs 10s.; A. S. Paterson and Co., Ltd., v. A. Kean, ,£sl 9s. Cel., costs .£3 175.; Scoullar Co., Ltd., v. Arthur Wright, .£!H Is. Id., costs c£2 10s.; Barter and Co., Ltd., v. Mm. 11. Dixon, .£2 7s. 5d., costs Ills.; Osmond and Son (N.Z.), Ltd., v. Titiho Morgan, fis. lid., costs 55.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., ami Abbott, Oram and Co. v. H. Palmer, XlO9 95., costs 25.; N.Z. Picture Supplies, Ltd., v.' William Thomas Watson, .£2O os. 2d., costs .£2 lGs. Mr. Riddell also gave judgment in the c.nao A. T. M'Williams v. E. Morris and Co., a claim for .£lO5 15s. in regard to cab and hearse hire. The sum of £130 17s. Od. had been paid into Court; the disputed lmlnnco was accounted for by the differences in hire rates claimed by pji.mtiff and the rates defendant was willing to pay. The Magistrate was not of tho opinion t*at plaintiff was entitled to the full hire rates claimed, and accordingly reduced these rates and gaTO judgment for plaintiff for JJI7 17s. Gd., with .£0 2s. costs.