PETONE COURT

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 46, 18 November 1926, Page 12

PETONE COURT

The fortnightly sitting of the Petone Magistrate's Court was held yesterday before Mi’. E. Page. S.M.. For selling firearms to a person under 16 years of age, G. W. Gray was ordered to pay costs, is. . • „ J u. Knox was fined -Os., J B, costs, for a breach of hrs prohibition order. He was allowed 14 days iu which Douglas Wickham, tor obstructing a footpath by loitering with his motorcycle was fined. £l, with 7s. costs. 11. It. Childs, on charges if failing to stop when requested to do so by a constable, exceeding the speed hunt, and riding a motor-cycle without having a license, was fined £1 ou the first charge, and IDs. each on the ..other two. Costs amounted to 7s. on each ':harge. For failing to register under the Defence Act, the following were fined:—b. Jarvis. £l. with Bs. costs; C. G. Jarvis, £2. with Bs. costs; J. L. Stapleton, £5. with 7s. costs. For failing to attend drill. G. It. Clemens was ordered to pay costs, 75.; A. Love was fined £2. C. 11. Wilton ICs.. It. K. Gough £2. K. 11. Gough 10s.. and 8. J. Lowndes 10s. Costs in each case amounted to is. W. Sowman, for failing to notify a change in his address, was fined £2, with 7s. costs. Judgment for plaintiff by default was civen in the-following undefended cases: —Phoenix Aerated Water Co., Ltd. v. 11. A. Gough, possession of tenement and £6, with £1 12s. 61. costs; estate of F. G. Held v. Harkness and Co.. £36 !'». 7d., with £4 4s. 6d. costs. A. W. Foote claimed £52 ss. Bd. from Mrs. J. Bosber, for labour and material alleged to have been used in connection with an addition to Mrs. Bosher’s house at 45 Fitzherbert Street’ It was alleged hv Foote that he had been instructed to build three rooms at the lack of Mrs. Bosher’s house, for which he was to supply the labour for £23, the timber and material to be supplied by Mrs. Boslier. Hnlf the amount had been paid to him. His claim represented the balance owing (£ll 10s.), and the cost of timber bought bv him on Mrs. Bosher’s instructions. Defendant claimed that Foote had given an estimate of £25 as cost of material to complete the work, and, further, that Foote had not carried out the work in a satisfactory or workmanlike manner. The Magistrate said that Foote was not bound to complete the work for the amount of the estimate The whole of the material was substantially put into the job. and Mrs. Bosher was bound to pay. The job was a very rough one, nnd he proposed to deduct £5 for defective workmanship. He would adjourn the case for a fortnight to Wellington. Mrs Bosher was to supply iron . and Foote to do certain repairs to the satisfaction of the engineer, when judgment would be given for £46 3s. 2d.