MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 94, 14 January 1921, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

POLICE AND CIVIL CASES ALLEGED THEFT OF JEWELLERY The police business at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday was taken by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. On the application of Chief-Detective Ward, William Henry Grant, alias Perham, alias Walker, was remanded to appear at Palmerston North on Monday on a charge of stealing from the dwelling of David MTntyre, Palmerston North, jewellery to the value of -863 55., and £7 in money. Victor G. Cook and Cornelius Ashby were charged -with using threatening behaviour in Cuba Street on Wednesday evening, whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned 1 . The two men met in Cuba Street, had some words, and a stand-up fight followed. Both men pleaded guilty. Cook was fined £2, and Asnby -ci. ‘ , T , Phillip Storey, Joseph Luck, and John Reynolds, members of th© crew of the s.s. Dorset, were convicted of being absent from tho vessel without leave/ and were each ordered to forfeit two days pay, and to be returned io tho vessel before she sailed. ' Victor Sayers, who was charged with being the putative father of an unborn child”, wasremanded to appear at Timaru on January 19, and was allowed hail in one surety of £5O. CIVIL CASES

Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., dealt with the civil cases and gave judgment for plaintiff by default in the following:— Commercial Agency Ltd. and Inglis Bros, and Co., Ltd., v. G. J. A. Richardson, £36 9s. 4d., costs £4 6s. 6d.; Charlotte J. Durrant v. Ernest It. Lawrence, £5, costs £1 7s. Gd-; Taylor Bros. v. L. J. Murphy, £5O ss„ costs £4 12s. Gd.; Eastbourne Mutual Stores Limited v. H. Stevens, jCB 55.. costs .£1 10s. Gd.; Commercial Agency and H. E. Partridge and Co. Ltd- v. R. Patterson, costs only, 335.; N Z Tyro and llubber Co. Ltd. v. Gregory G. Kelly, £66 155., costs £4 135.; Eliza. Star v. Minnie Grey, £3O 17s. Gd., costs £3 Ils-; Commercial Agency, Ltd., and Stewart Timber and Hardware Co. v William R. Johns, £32 3s. Gd., costs £4 15s. 6d.; Harold W. Brown and Co., Ltd., v. IV. Gosling. £l6 145., costs £2 145.; E. J- Hyams, TM., v. E. R. D’Anvers, £3 19s. lid., costs 235. Gd.; Ellen Myberg v. Rudolf Doube, £79 55., costs £4 195.; Edmund P. Bunny y. Laurentz Angell £3 35., costs 255. Gd.; Lillie Brown v. Horace C. Janies, £43 9s. 7d., costs £4 Is. , Judgment summons cases were dealt with as follow:— Harry Hooper was ordered to pay Dr. Erneste Power and Co. £ll 10s. by January 27, in default seven days’ imprisonment; Pat, Foster to pay Edith Foster £33 16s. by January 27, in default 21 days’ imprisonment.

A PLUMBER’S ACCOUNT. S. Jackson, plumber (Air. W. Organ) sought to recover from R. C. Renner, land agent 'Mr. C. AV. Tringham) the sum of £7 15s. for plumbing work don© to a dwelling-house on tho instructions of the defendant- The ease was defended on the ground that the defendant was merely the agent for the owner of the property. The plaintiff stated that credit was given to Renner personally. After hearing, evidence, judgment was given for plaintiff for the full amount claimed’, together with costs and expenses totalling «£3 1.*5. e SALE OF A SMALL BUSINESS. Lillian Olivia Phillips, of Petono, confectioner (Mr. J. C. Hanna) claimed to recover from Annie Locke, Wellington, widow (Air. AV. G. Alellish) the sum of £144 in respect to the sale and purchase of the leas© and goodwill of a fruit and confectionery business at Petonc, and th© stock, fittings, plant, etc., for the sum of £2OO. In the statement of claim it was set. out that the plaintiff complete<KMhe' Contract for the purchase of Ar business on July 20, 1920, and paid the defendant the sum of £2OO. It. was alleged that the plaintiff was induced to make, and complete the contract by the defendant fraudulently, or recklessly, it being represented to the plaintiff that the takings of the said business were £35 to £4O per week; that the contents of th© confectionery boxes, forming part of the stock, were of th© same kind and quality throughout as appeared at the top of the boxes, and that th© contents of certain boxes were high-grade chocolates of a value of from 5s to 6s. per 'box. The plaintiff, on the strengdi of these representations, completed the contract. ’The plaintiff contended that tho representations were false, that the fakings did not amount to anything like the sum represented, that the boxes contained only a layer of confectionery of good quality, and beneath that lay®]’ worthless rubbish. Plaintiff claimed £IOT damages in respect to the lease and goodwill, and £44 damages in respect ot the stock. The defence was that there was nn damage respecting the lease, that the goodwill was intangible and incapable of being assessed,'that no evidence hau been given that the takings of the defendant were less than she had represented them. The plaintiff had every opportunitv of inspecting the stock. Counsel contended that the plaintiff bought at her own risk after inspection. Tho Alagistrate, after reviewing the evidence at some length, thought the plaintiff was entitled io some damages, but not to anything like what she claimed. Judgment was givenXfor plaintiff tor £35, with costs and expeiSes.