S.M. Court.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 36, 12 May 1906, Page 2

S.M. Court.

FOXTON—THURSDAY. (Before A. D, Thomson, S.M.) CIVIL. M. Perreau (Mr Moore) v. WJ Cook. Judgment by default for £7 i2s, costs Bs, solicitor 15s 6d. Smale & Hay (Mr Moore) v. T. Chamberlain. Judgment by de* fault for £3 10s 6d, costs 6s, solicitor ss. S. H. Baker (Mr Moore) v. W* Walden. Claim £4 12S 6d. Judgment for £1 12s 6d, costs 6s, Mrs K. Coley (Mr Moore) v. R. Lord. Claim £7 7* 6<L Judgment for £6 2s, costs Bs, solicitor 15s 6d. W. Hope v. G. Brewer. Claim ,£4 3s 6q. Judgment for £4 is, 110 costs. Jas. Johnson v. G. Brewer. Claim £4 3s 6d. Judgment for £4 is, no costs. G. Gray (Mr Readc) v. W« Homes. Claim £l7 6s Bd. Judgment for amount claimed, costs 15s, solicitor 15s 6d. R. Moore (Mr Moore) v. Cook. Judgment by default for £1 17s Bd, costs ss. fr-f G. Brewer (Mr Moore) y. Wj Hope (Mr Read. Claim lor £5 damages. Judgment for £t, no costs. A similar case against J. Johnson was dealt with in a like manner. H. Ashmore (Mr Reade) v. G, Barber. Claim for £25. Nonsuited with costs 6s, solicitor £2 2s. A. Speirs v. A. Oliver. Judgment for amount claimed £3 19s 9d, costs ss. E. Hill (Mr Moor?) v. A. Lee. Judgment for amount claimed 10s, costs Bs, Smale & Hay (Mr Moore) v. J. Lynes. Claim £1 2s 3d. Ordered to pa} r 19s 3d forthwith, in default three days. Several other cases were adjourned, struck out, and settled. POLICE CASES. Police v. Agnes Santon. Theft of a handkerchief and £t, the property of Annie Levett. No evi-ls-ace was offered, and the case was struck out. Police v. E. Dunn, being drunk, and having been twice previously convicted of same offence within oast six months. Convicted and fined ros, costs 7s, in default 48 hours. Police v. F. Dunn. Found in oossession of liquor whilst prohibited. Fined 20s, costs 7s, in default 3 days. Police v. F. Dunn. Resisting oolice in execution of duty. Convicted and fined 10s, costs 7s, in default 3-days^ For being on licensed premise? on Good Friday, four first offenders were fined ss, and costs 7s. . THE TEA PARTY CASE. Great interest was manifested in the Police cases brought against J. T. Levett and a party of gentlemen who were invited by him to spend a social evening at his hotel. . This social evening extended after 10 o’clock, licensed closing hour, and hence the present case. J. T. Levett was charged with failing to admit without unnecessary delay on to licensed premises* E. J. Whitehouse and J. Lander, constables in the execution of their duty. The defence was that the singing, etc., of the ,party of friends prevented hearing the knocking of the constables. After consideration, His Worship dismissed the information, also against the other parties, lieving that they were not there for the mere purpose of defying the law. At the same time, His Worship said the Police were q-‘te justified in bringing the case. *