MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2565, 28 July 1909, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TUESDAY, JULY 27

Mr W. A. Barton, 6.M.) PROHIBITION ORDERS BROKEN

Henry AVilloughby was charged with having on July 21st committed a breach of the prohibition in force against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr W. L. Rees. Constable Pratt said that on tho night in question he went to the defendant’s house and saw Burnett, the accused and h;s wife with a bottle of gin. The whole three wore drunk. An unbroken bottle of whisky was also on the tabie and there was a stack of empty beer bottles on the floor. The accused’s wife was staggering about the floor saying: “Kapai te beer, Kapai te whisky; no good to gin.” , To Mr Rees: He was positive that all three in the house were drunk and had they been on the street he would have arrested them. Constable Scott gave similar evidence. Mr Rees said that he had been instructed that the ' accused had not touched tho drinlc._ His Worship said he was sorry he could not send the man to gaol without the option of a fine. It was a pity that the man could not,be separated front his wife. He was only injuring himself and injuring her. A fine of £lO. with costs 7s,' in"default three months’ imprisonment would be imposed. Alexander Burnett pleaded guilty to having, 'on July 21st., committed a breach of the prohibition order in force against liim. The accused said he was sorry that he had committed the offence. A fine of £3 with 7s costs in default 14 days’ imprisonment was inflicted. Seven days wore allowed in which to pay the fine. BICYCLES ON THE FOOTPATH. David John Barry and George Freddy were each fined 10s with costs 7s for having ridden a bicycle on the footpath. A BUILDER’S CLAIM. Messrs Peacock© and Co. (Mr Barnard) claimed £l5O due on the liability of a document issued by W. Crump, a bankrupt, against Dr. J. W. Williams and another. Mr J. W. Nolan, instructed by Mr Mann, appeared for the defendant. Tho case bad been previously before the Court, when a considerable quantity , of evidence was taken and an application was made to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the document. Mr Burnard said the Supreme Court had decided that the document was a bid of exchange, and he understood the respondent wished to call evidence to explain the circumstances under which the order was accepted. Mr Nolan said the Supreme _ Court judgment made it clear _ that if the circumstances under which the order was accepted could be explained it might .be held not to 1 e a bi'l of exchange. The evidence.of Hector Pearce, arenitect, and W. Crump, builder tali on on commission,, was put ir. Dr John William Williams sahl that last year lie was attending to the details of the building of a house for his mother. Crump was the contractor. In June 190 S lie received a certificate from Messrs Bamford and Pearce authorising a payment of £200: "Witness paid £SO of that amount to Crump on June 6th and on June 10th tho balance of £l5O. On June 11th plaintiff asked witness if he had paid Crump any money as Crump had told plaintiff he had not received any. Witness replied that lie had paid Crump £2OO. Plaintiff said he had an order from Crump, through Messrs Bamford and Pearce, architects, fo T £IOO. AVjitness said he was sorry he had the order, but it could not be honored as the’ money had been paid to Crump, and the order was not addressed to him. but to Messrs Bamford and Pearce. Plaintiff asked witness if ho would accept ail order from Crump. Witness replied that if Crump agreed he would do so-, as it was the same to him whether he paid plaintiff or paid Crump. Plaintiff then brought the order whi'ek accepted and said it would he honored out of the next, progress payment. Plaintiff added that the usual course was for the order to be accepted and plaintiff to '-eep it. Witness then wrote the word accepted, across the corner and plaintiff retained the order. No money became due to Crump from the contract after the order was signed, as Crump abandoned the contract, and the work was completed by another contractor. There was a small surplus which was dealt with by the Court. . To Mr Barnard : He signed the contract for the job on beha.,f of - his mother. He also signed the cheques for the, payments. Mr Burnard asked permission to call Mr Peacoeke to give rebuttal evidence. Mr Nolan wanted to know what evidence was to he contradicted. Mr Bumard said he wished-to rebut some of the evidence given by Crump. Permission to call rebuttal, evidence was given. .. . . Hilary Peacoeke,, ormcipal p amtitt in the '-case, denied the evidence given by Crump which stated that when the order was given there was no money due. Crump had given witness to understand that there was £4OO due and the architects had kept £IOO. When Cramp signed theforder witness did not know there was no monev due to him. When witness presented tile order. Dr. Williams said the order was on Barnford and Pearce and suggested, it should he made out on him. Witness wrote an order on Dr. Williams for the amount and they were accepted. The doctor said witness would not, haye to wait long for the money as there were progress payments in-hand. The doctor promised to see tliat the order was paid. Witness' understood that when the doctor accepted the order payment was guaranteed.,. • / To Mr Nolan: Witness did not tell. Dr. Williams that Crump had said there was £4OO worth of work done. < Mr Nolan addressed the Court at length upon the form of the order and quoted authorities to show that the respondents were not liable for the redemption of the order. Mr Burnard also addressed the Court and quoted authorities in support of his- contention that respondents were liable, and ..judgment was reserved.