MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 March 1922, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTIXG. ALLEGED THEFT OF CAE. A sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday, before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. Daniel Berriman, who was charged with being an idle and disorderly person with insufficient means of support, was remanded for seven days. Stanley Roy Montgomery and Henry Hampton appeared on a charge of unlawfully taking a motor-car at Epsom on March 11 and converting it to their own use. A further charge against them was that between March 11 and 13 they broke and entered the shop of R. L. Henderson at Te Awamutu, and stole clothing to the value of £GI 7s 6d. On the application of Detective-Ser-geant Cooney, the accused were remanded on both charges to appear at Te Awamutu on the 21st inst. MAINTENANCE CASES. Isaiah Francis Keenan was before the court on a charge of a breach of his maintenance order. Defendant was previously ordered by the court to pay 25s per week for the maintenance of four of his children who were committed to a receiving home, and for arrears, which to August 29 last amounted to £39. The ease had previously been adjourned for three months. The Magistrate impressed upon Keenan that he was liable to imprisonment if he did not help to support his children. The case was adourned for two months, the sum of 27/6, being £1 per week on current account, and 7/fi per week off arrears, to be paid weekly. In the case of Sadie Anne Crombie V. Arthur Bell Crombie, for failing to pay money due under a maintenance order, in which he was in arrears £22 2s up to February 22 last, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment at Wellington, the warrant to be suspended if defendant paid £lO on account of arrears within fourteen days and the balance of £l2 2s within one month. BY-LAW BREACH. On the information of Inspector Day, William Bransgrove was charged under the Dangerous Goods by-law with storing 40 cases of benzine in a building contrary to this by-law, and without a license. Inspector Day stated that defendant had two adjoining cottages in Courteney Street, one of which he occupied whilst the other was rented to a tenant On March 10 the Inspector found that forty cases of benzine were stored in a shed attached to the tenant’s house. The shed was near the road, and there was a danger of a passer-by dropping a match and causing an explosion. The shed was in no way suitable for the purpose to which it had been put. In a properly constructed building 250 gallons only were allowed to be stored, while in this instance the shed contained. 320 gallons. Defendant, in pleading guilty, explained that he did not usually store benzine in the shed, but this consignment, which he had arranged for clients outside the town, had come two days earlier than expected. If it had come when expected the clients would have been ready to take it away, but, as it happened, he had to make the best arrangements possible for its stowage for the one and a half days before the clients took it away.

The Magistrate said it was plain that such dangerous goods could not be al lowed to be stored within the borough in such a miscellaneous way. If posses sion was not taken when expected, defendant was responsible, and must see that the offence did not happen again. He would be convicted and fined £5 for storing benzine without a license, and on the other charge would be convicted and discharged. Costs amounted to 7s.

On a charge of being on the licensed premises of the Breakwater Hotel, Len. Bennett, who pleaded guilty, was fined £1 (costs 7s). • Detective-Sergt. Cooney said that evidently defendant did not go into the hotel to get drink. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given in the following undefended cases:—Henry Jas. Lowe (Mr. H. R. Billing) v. John Dodd, £26 5s lOd (costs £3 l§); Henry Jas. Lobb (suing for the Crown, Mr. H. R. Billing) v. Jas. Gartwood King, £l4 9s lid (costs £2 14s)’; Quinn and Kenny (Mr. L. Etherington) v. A. H. Henderson, £5 17s (costs £1 10s 6d); the Ridd Co., Ltd. (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) v. B. J. Daisley,. £56 16s ’Od (costs £2 Ils Od); Leonard T. Cress well (Mr. A. C. Lawrey) v. Robert Booth, £l6 18s 10<l (costs £2 16s); New Plymouth Shirt Factory (Mr. T. P. Anderson) v. Joseph Manson, £7O Ils Sd (costs £4 15s 6d); J.P. Hardware Co. (Mr. H. R. Billing) v. F. Jenkins, £25 Is 6d (costs £3 la); Stainton and Co., Ltd. (Air. C. McCormick) v. Frank Valentine Burkett, £27 9s Id (costs £3 Is). , A TENANCY CASE. A claim was made by Harry Robert Garnham (Mr. T. 1??. Anderson) against Thomas Firth Trimble (Air. A. A. Bennett) for £36 for rent due. The case mainly revolved about the question of whether due notice of intention to quit was given and whether the correct person was notified of this intention.

In outlining the case for the plaintiff Air. Anderson said plaintiff was the owner of a house at Westown which he was desirous of selling, but towards the end of September an agreement was made to rent the house to defendant at £2 per week, the term of the tenancy not being stipulated. Defendant entered into possession and had paid two weeks’ rent. About the beginning of December plaintiff found out that defendant had left the place.

H. R. Garnham. jeweller, in his evidence, denied that notice had been given him, either verbally or in writing. Mr. Bennett, addressing the magistrate, claimed that the tenancy had been terminated by verbal notice on September 30, when he gave notice to Watkins, whom the defence claimed was Garnharrt’s agent. that he would be leaving on October 3. and paid his rent' up to the week ending October 6. As notice had been waived by plaintiff’s agent, counsel contended that plaintiff’s case must fail. AVhy had not Garnham communicated with Trimble telling him that he was paying his rent wrongly to Watkins and to pay all future rent to plaintiff? His failure to do even this was, contended counsel, an acquiescence of Watkins’ right to collect rent on his behalf. Robert. Trimble, son of the defendant, gave evidence that Garnham told,

him to make all arrangements for pay-ment-of rent to Watkins. The magistrate drew the inference that the tenancy was one of '£2 per week, which could be terminated at any time. It seemed to him that the evidence o-f defendant was true because plaintiff had taken no steps to seek payment after the payment of September 30 till November, or to ascertain the position in any way. There was no doubt that plaintiff had ratified the agency of Watkins on two separate occasions. The plaintiff, in his view, had not established his case, and would therefore be non-suited, with court costs 15s, witness’ expenses 7s 6d, and solicitor’s fee £3 3s. 21 PHOTOGRAPHER’S CLAIM. A claim for £36 5s 7d for photographic goods wrongly taken was made by Brandon Haughton (Mr. H. R. Billing) against W. H. Oakley (Mr. R. H. Quilliam). Mr. Billing explained that both parties were photographers. Plaintiff had a studio on one side of the street and a store room for photographic goods ou the other side, near the Empire Theatre, and where he previously had carried on busineais before being burnt out. Later he sold out his studio to the defendant, but the goods and chattels in the store room were not included in the agreement o-f sale. Plaintiff then went on a visit to Australia, but, several weeks after his return, found that goods he had left in the store room had been removed and had been replaced by goods sold by plaintiff to the defendant. Oakley was written to by plaintiff’s solicitors asking for payment of the goods, particulars of which were enclosed. As no satisfaction had been received these proceedings were taken. Plaintiff said that when he had occasion to inspect his stock three weeks aftei" his return, from Australia he discovered some of his mounts missing, and they were replaced by mounts he had sold to Oakley. He then checked his stock with a list he had, discovering that other material had been taken and similarly replaced. After consulting his solicitors witness interviewed Oakley about the matter. Oakley replied that he knew nothing about any material being taken away. Mr. Quilliam submitted that these goods had been removed after the sale and a fraud committed. He admitted the material was taken, and some was put back as Oakley ‘had had quite a lot to “put up” with. At 5.15 p.m. the case was adjourned till 10.30 o’clock this morning.