MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2554, 16 July 1909, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY~ (Before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M.) /’ DRUNKENNESS. • Thomas Griffiths, the man who was arrested on the W-aikanae beach, on Wednesday afternoon, was charged with drunkenness, and on the application of Sergeant Hutton was remanded for 7 days for medical examination. Charles Daniels, alias Cucumber, admitted a third offence for drunkenness and was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment. A prohibition order was also issued against accused. CIVIL OASES. / Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed in each of the following cases:- —Benjamin Tanner Mr. Bright) v. James Newton, claim £2* 17s 6d with costs J-Os; Joseph JMartin (Mr. Bright) v. 0. McGregor, claim £l4 with costs 10s 6d; Civil Service and Citizens’ Co-operative Bakery, Ltd., v. J. C. E. Turner, claim £7 10s with costs £1 3s 6d; F. Hall (Mr. Nolan) v. G. A. Runciman, claim £125 with costs £6 ss; Gisborne "Times” Company (Mr. Blair) v. Amy Shelton, claim £4 15s, costs 10s; William J. R. Bruce (Mr. Blair) v. Mohi Tamatea, claim £2 8s Bd, costs 15s; John Foster (Mr. Blair) v. R. Allen, claim £5.. 3s, costs, £jl 11s 6dHoani Ruakura- (Mr. Rees) v. Te Mini Iverekere, claim £l3 15s 6d, costs £2 9s 6d. JUDGMENT CASES. In the case of William Good (Mr. Bright) v. August Zenker, judgment for £2 19s. The defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith in default 3 days’ imprisonment. Horne and Gray (Air. Blair) v. Walter Wilkinson, judgment £3 Is 9d. The defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith in default 3 days’ imprisonment. William J. Hennessv claimed £1 17s from Joseph Henry Russell. The defendant. sworn, said lie was a married man and paid rent. Since the date of the judgment ho,had earned between 30s and 35s per week. He had no property and no private means. An order was ihade for the amount to be paid within six weeks, in default 2 days’ imimprisonment. The Official Assignee (Air. Nolan) claimed £6B 16s 6d, amount of judgment from Tai:i Biddles (Air. Stock). Defendant said he was a married man with a family of five. Since judgment in January, was given lie had only earned about £4O. He owned no property. wo order was made. Alatthew Peter Poole proceeded to recover £ls 11s ldj/ amount of a judgment given against '"William Bartlett." Air. Hei appeared for the judgement creditor. After evidence.had been heard the Bench refused to make on order. Joseph Gurzins'ki (Air. Bright) claimed £32 6s 9d, amount of a judgment from Alfred James, Nicholas (Air. Coleman). The defendant said he was at present out of work and his average earnings since the date of the judgment was £2 10s. He paid 15s a week rent. No order was made. Hamiora Hei claimed from Pera Waaka £5 7s, amount of a judgment against him in February last. • Debtor said that since the judgment he had never had sufficient money to pay. After evidence had been heard, the debtor was ordered to pay the amount, with costs, within 30 days, in default 8 days’ imprisonment. A number of cases were adjourned and evidence was taken in the case of the Hawke’s Bay Alotor Co. v. T. R. Lees, the case to be heard in Napier.

CLAIM FOR GOODS SOLD

Albert Michael Lewis (Mr. Blair) sued George Barron (Mr. Stock) lor £‘23 18s 3d for goods sold. Mr. Blair said the goods were sold and delivered to defendant through his manager, Mr. Gordon, who was generally looked upon to possess full power to act for Mr. Barron during the latter’s absence in -England. Mr. Gordon had ordered the goods while he was acting as- manager for Mr. Barron, and were duly delivered and charged to the defendant. The plaintiff gave evidence that the items in the account had never been disputed. Mr. Gordon ordered the goods on account of two workmen named Johnson and Honey. .. Mr. Gordon asked witness to send the men the account, but witness said he did not know Johnson and Honey, and Mr. Gordon said lie would be responsible for the .account. He added that as soon as the men finished their contract the debt would be paid. Some time niterwards Mr. Gordon asked witness if he had received a cheque for the amount. Witness said that no cheque had been sent, and Gordon replied that lie had asked defendant to pay the amount. The defendant had not paid the account. It was usual for station accounts to be divided, so that the. tally of goods supplied to contractors could be ascertained. Mr. Barron had never disputed Gordon’s authority to order the goods. lie had never asked Gordon if Johnson and IToney were good enough for the account. Mr. Gordon frequently took goods away from the store for' Johnson and Honey. All the goods were ordered by Gordon, who had paid the acounts for other contractors. Francis Samuel Morgan, in the plaintiff’s employ, gave evidence that the goods were supplied to the order of Mr; Gordon. 7 Mr Stock said the evidence for the defence would shew that Air Gordon never guaranteed to pay the account. Alexander Gordon said he was sta-tion-manager for defendant during Mr Barron’s absence in England. He was not responsible lor debts' incurred by contractors on the station. The goods in dispute were ’ordered 4>y 1 Johnstone and Honov and witness merely delivered the order to plaintiff. Witnesss did not take delivery of the goods, and he did not promise to he responsible for payment. He only ordered goods and he did promise- to be responsible for payment. He only ordered goods on one occasion for Johnson and Hcmey. The account was rendered to Mr Barron for Johnson and Honey to which witness objected. Witness had guaranteed other accounts with the plaintiff

The defendant said Mr Gordon acted as his manager in 1908. He never gave Gordon -authority to guarantee contractors’ debts. In all other respects Gordon had full management. After Counsel had addressed the Court judgment was given for the plaintiff for. the amount claimed with costs £5 4s.