MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1076, 30 November 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly silling of the Magistrate’s Court was held befoie Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., yesterday. DISTURBING A MEETING. Harry Prew and John Presling were charged, cm the information of Alfred Fraser, manager ol the Municipal Pictures, with, on No vember 17th, disturbing a public meeting oi entertainment tor the exhibition of moving pictures. Both defendants pleaded guilty, and Prew stated that on the night in question they went into the hall before the pictures were in progress and took their seats. There was a considerable amount of noise being made by others at the time. Later, when a comic picture was thrown on the screen, they got up and sang out, and Constable Sweeney came along and told them to be quiet, and they did so. The noise they had made was in appreciation, and they did not use any objectionable language, or anything of that sort. Mr Moore, who appeared for Mr Fraser, said that the statement made by Prew was practically correct. The object of the prosecution was to stop the noise and disturbance at future entertainments. The Magistrate said that it was advisable to check this kind of thing at the outset, and as the case had been brought more as a caution, he would not iuliict any fine, but each defendant would be convicted and ordered to pay costs 7s and solicitor’s fee 10s 6d. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases:—M. H. Walker v. Peter Petersen, claim £5 4s 3d, costs 26s 6d ; same v. John Harper, £$ os qd, costs 17s ; same v. Aprama Mapouriki, ,£4 17s gd, costs 12s ; Easton and Co., v. J. Lanibess and wife, ,£n 8s rod, costs 33s 6d ; M. H. Walker v. R. Baker, gjg gs rod, costs 18s 6d ; aud same v. Hugh Walls, 14s sd, costs ss. In the case Brown v. W. Flamer, which was a' j rimed from last Court ..1 wiuer to allow the defendant to make some arrangements with plaintiff, Mr Moore appeared for defendant and asked that the amount of the proposed order be reduced. lu this case the defendant had given a Dunedin firm a p.u. for goods supplied and Brown had discounted the bill. Before its due date, however, the defendant sent a cheque to the firm from whom he purchased the goods aud asked them to destroy the bill. This was not done, and upon the bill being dishonoured Brown proceeded against Hamer to recover the amount.

The Magistrate varied the judgment oi ,£2B 7s, to be paid by monthly instalments ot £2, first payment to be made on December 29th.