MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 171, 15 April 1921, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

POLICE AND CIVIL CASES FINED 40/- FOR THEFT "This man’s trouble is that he is addicted to drink,” remarked Chief-Detec-tive Ward, when Sydney Ernest Haase, 23 years of age, appeared in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. Haase, who is an employe© in licensed premises, went into a room where a tram conductor had hung up his uniform coat, and extracted 10»Haase pleaded guilty, and was fined 40s. and ordered to refund the stolen money. A lad, 17 years of age, named Arthur John Wilkie, pleaded guilty to stowing away on the s.s. Manuka, on the vessel’s last trip from Sydney to Wellington. The lad said that he was out of work in Sydney, and came on to Now Zealand in the hope of getting work here. He had offered to work his passage. He was ,oonvict'ed and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, and was ordered to refund the amount of the fare by weekly instalments. For drunkenness, Thomas Blake was fined 20s. -with the option of three days’ imprisonment, and Rose Patterson and John Keen were each fined 10s., in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. CIVILBUSINESS Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., dealt with the civil business, and gave judgment for plaintiff in the following undefended oases: —George T. White, Ltd. v. G. Anson Ils. 2d., costs 135.; Rouse 1 M'Donald Co., Ltd., v. Mrs. Mary Denham, 145., costs 95.; Wright Stephenson ami Co Ltd. v. F. Coutts £1 12s (Id., costs 95.; Citizens’ Loan and Discount Co. v. H. B. Oliver and Z. Oliver £l2 18s., costs £2 195.; Wm. Owers v. Percy Fitzgerald £22 55.,- costs £3 Is.; John Chambers and Son, Ltd. v. W. Lricey £6 55., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Commercial Agency and H. C. Gibbons and Co., Ltd. v. B. Brode 19s. Id., costs Bs.; same and Combined Buyers, Ltd. v. Andrew R. Guild. £66 4s. Id., costs £4 135.; same v. H. Chatman £6 7s. 10d., costs .21 16s. 6d.; Ferguson and Osborne Ltd. v. G. Jenkins £2 Gs 7d.. costs £1 3s. fid.; H. S. Langdon Ml J. Burton £i 10s., costs V £l ss. 6d.; L. M. Dennis. Geo. Dennis, and J. Dennis v. Campbell and Reid -£2O 10s., costs -£3 35.; Thompson Bros, Ltd. v. John Troy .£4 165., costs £1 As. 6d.; Wellington Gas Company, Ltd v. Norah O’Sullivan £2 ,19s. Id., costs JU 3s. Cd.; Commercial Agency and E. W. Mills and Co., Ltd. v. M. Phillips £3 Is. 6d. costs only; T. and W. Ypung v. T. Jones £lO 8s„ costs £2 155.; Blundell Bros, Ltd. v. O’Connor Bros £27, costs .83 55.; C. B. Lempriere and Co. v. Ramsay and Co. .£26 fe. 9d., costs £3 Is.; Hope Gibbons Ltd. v. G. Welburn £23 45., costs £1 10s.; Veitch and Allan v. E. Skeen .£8 ss. Id., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Al. E. Buckland v. W. D Kennedy £3, cost's £l"3s. 6d. ; Allan Smith v. Louis Hoeft £3. costs £1 ss. fid.; Vacuum Oil Co. v. A. Dunne £93 45., costs £5 6s. 6d.; Commercial Agency and Inglis Brothers qnd Co., Ltd. v. Hunter and P- Beere, £l2 175., costs £2 195.; D.I.C. v. H. N. Gemmell, £25 19s. Bd., costs £3 Is. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. E. W. Olliver was ordered to pay M. M'Govern the sum of £37 12s. 6d. by May 6, or undergo 14 days’ imprisonment; G. A. Waddle to pay A. J. Vida] ,<nd Sons £i 14s. 6d. by May 6, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. Wm; M'Gavin to pay R. R. Coppock and Co. £47 18s. 9d. by May 6, or undergo 14 days’ imprisonment. H. Wright to pay AV. E. Smith £26 Ids', by May 6 or undergo 14 days’ imprisonment, ALLEGED SLANDER. Before Mr. AV. G. Riddell, S.M., Elanor Wearne (Mr. P. O'Regan) sought to recover from John Sanko and his wife. Ellen Sauko, Marble Bar, 131 Cuba Street, restauranteur (Mr. H. F. O’Laery) the sum of £59 as damages for alleged slander. The statement of claim set out that on March 1, Ellen Sanko spoke the following words to Mollie Wilson, 11 Devon Street, a married woman, then employed by the defendant, at the premises':—“We' have got rid of 'Nellie’ (meaning the plaintiff). T saw her take a pound out of the till and put it, in her apron pocket,” which statement was contended to be false and defamatory. Mr. O’Regan, in opening, detailed the circumstances leading up to the alleged slander. The plaintiff had been in like employ of the defendants as waitress, and after two months’ service was given the usual notice, but without assigning any reason for fhe same. On March 1 the pantry-maid, who resided in the same tenement "as the plaintiff, remarked to Mrs. Sanko that the plaintiff had been w'ondering why she had been dismissed. The alleged slander was uttered in the course of Mrs. Sanko’s reply. Some parte of the conversation were heard by a waitress, whom counsel would be unable to' call' as she was at present in Hawera. . Evidence was given by the plaintiff and the pantry-maid in support of counsel’s statement. '/ The defence was a denial that the words were used'. No mention had been made during the conversation of a £1 not© being taken from the till, and there was no third party present when the conversation took place. The Magistrate non-suited the plaintiff, with £2 2s. costs.