MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 299, 13 September 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

• Mr. E. Pafre, SIM., presided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. For insobriety cue first offender was fined as., in default 24 hours' imprison, meiit, and another who failed to appear had ills bail of 10s. estreated.

Thomas Austin pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and also to a cliargo of committing a grossly indecent act' in Taranaki street. Oil tho first charge ho was fined 205.,' and on the second ho was fin<id £2, the alternative being seven days' imprisonment. Samuel Martin ISparkes pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and as there were two previoim convictions against him he was fined 205., in default _48 hours' imprisonment, and for committing «• breach of his prohibition order he was lined J!3, with tho. alternative of serving seven days in gaol. ' An articled seaman 'on the s.s. Westmeatli named John Lacey was convicted of absenting himself from tho vessel without leave, and wan ordered to pay <£2 expanses, and for assaulting Georgo Snrri, a member of the crew, lie was fined a further £2, in default seven days' imprisonment. \ tor committing a breach of his prohibition order William Clmrles Harvey was fined £j, 'with the alternativo of serving seven days in gaol. ... For wearing a military overcoat without permission Albert Weeks was fined 75., the amount of the Court costs. Bernard Manscy pleaded not guilty to a charge of'having been found on licensed premises in broach of tho AVar Emulations. The defendant was able to provo tlmt he went, to tho hotel to see an in. mate, such visit being mado by appointment/ The information was dis. missed. ... . Prohibition orders, to be in force for 13 months, were isi-ued against Philip H. W. Ogier and .Dul&y Wyatt.

CLAIM FOB GOODS SOLD. Mr. W. G. Rid dell, S.M.. heard tho case of the C. and A. Odlin Timber and Hardware Co., Ltd., for whom Mr, Kennedy appeared, a-iainst Williams and Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. T. Neave, a claim for JG2B I>. for goods sold and delivered. It was alleged that Williams and Co. had instructed a Mr. Muroliie, a cabinetmaker, to order goods from the plaintiffs and to got them to charge the goods up to the defendants. The goods were delivered to Mr. Murchie, who manufactured certain articles therefrom and sold th<m to Williams, and Co., and evidence in support of this was givon by several witnesses. For tho dofence it was claimed that Williams and Co. -undertook simply to protect the plaintiffs by holding nionere duo bv the defendants to Mnrcluo until tho plaintiffs wero paid. His Worship decided in favour of the plaintiffs and gave judgment far tho full amount claimed, with costs and expenses amounting to £7 12s.