MAGISTERIAL.

4> CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Fkurxtary 10. (Before Mr 11. W. Bishop, S.M.) Thai-* and Motor-car. — Thomas Henshall (Mr Hunt) claimed £50 from P. W. Soanes (Mr Johnston) damages for > injuries received in a collision between plaintiff's trap aad defendant's niotor- * car on the North Road on the evening ; of November 8. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had run into him when on his wrong side of the road, and the defence was a general denial of the charge. Evidence was given on. both / sides by several witnesses, and the Magistrate said that the evidence in favour of the plaintiff Avas overpoweringly strong. He took the evidence for plaintiff as perfectly correct, and was , satisfied that the accident was caused by the defendant not exercising proper ~cSte. There was, however, the question whether the defendant was entitled to relief through contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. The contributory negligence was the absence of lights. The law on this point was one of degree, he took it. The onus in this case lay with defendant. Contributory negligence was entirely a question of law, with due regard to the facts. He would hold that defendant was ' liable, and give judgment for plaintiff. The question of damages then aroße, < and he would take £5 off the value of tho horse, £5 off the cart and. £3 off the rest of the claim. Judgment would be &>'• £37 and costs. Judgment bt ••■ Default. — Judgmentwas" given for plaintiffs, with costs, by default, in the following cases: — W. Strange and Co. (Mr Flesher) y. J. H. Were and Mary Were, £33 3s 6d ; Selwyn Countv Council (Mr E. T. Harper) v. D. N. "O'Reilly, £7 5s 9d; H. J. Weeks v. J. Eastes, £1 15s: same v. J. E. Ash-worth, £2 10s lOd; W. A. Tribe and Co. (Mr Upham) v. J. M'Auliffe, £3 10s j Maling and Co. (Mr Bolleston) v. Henry Willie, £1 19s lOd ; R. Arlow and Co. (Mr Rowe) v. J. Menelaus, £1 8s; Best-and Towne "(Mr Rowe) v. M. A. Brook, £4 16s 6d ; Best and Towne (Mr Rowe) v. A. Gledhill, £1 , ss ; G." F. Bryant (Mr Rowe) v. C. R. Chambers, £1 15s. A Dressmaking Case. — Isabella Keonig claimed 9s from Maggie Lyons for work done. After hearing evidence regarding the wages paid to dressmakers, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff. Water Rates. — The Selwyn County Council (Mr E. T. Harper) v. J. Gaskin, claim £7 2s 2d for water rates and cost of cleaning races. The defendant said that he had not been supplied with water, and disputed the case. The Magistrate said that defendant could not take up a position of tliis sort, and gave judgment against him. Other Cases. — G. R. Fail v. Thomas Derrett (Mr Cuningbaan), claim £1 ss. The defendant's solicitor produced a receipt for the amount, and judgment was given in his favour.— H. W. Richards v. E. Stewart, claim £2 ss. Defendant had already paid£l, and judgment was given for a similar amount. — G. F. Bryant (Mr Rowe) v. James M. Fairbairn, claim £5 17s for balance on a milk-cart and accessories. Judgment was given for £5 and costs. Tuesday, February 11. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Drujtkenness. — George Wilson, who was found drunk in Colombo Street while in charge of a horse and trap, protested violently that he was perfectly sober, but he was convicted and fined 20s, in default 6even days' imprisonment.—A first offender was fined ss. in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. — Kate Brown, "who procured liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, was fined 20s, in default one nionth in gaol, and was allowed a week in which to find the money. Theiit. — Mary Smart was charged with having stolen, at Sydenham, a blouse and skirt, valued at 10s, the property of Minnie Cook. ' The Magistrate asked her whether she would go to the Samaritan Home, but the girl refused. Sub-Inspector Dwyer said that the accused had no means, and owed money for board. The Magistrate said that it would not be in accordance with his practice to send her to gaol, and fined 1 her 20s, in default one nionth's imprisonment, giving her one month in which to pay. . > Ax Old Offender. — Alfred Smith, charged with having kept a brothel, ■ was sentenced to three months' impriI sonment, his record showing that he ■ was convicted of a similar offence in i 1905. ; Milk. — Henry Cox (Mr Don- | nelly) pleaded not guilty to having sold on December 14 impure milk for human consumption. Mr Wright, who appeared for the Dairy Inspector, put in the report of the Government Analyst, showing that the milk was deficient in butter-fat. Defendant said that he had bought milk on the day in question from two neighbours, and was not aware that it did not comply with the requirements of the Act. The Magistrate said that in the past he had inflicted lenient penalties, thinking that 1 in the interests of public health a 6top 1 should be put -to these practices. These ' cases must be dealt with on their merits, and his previous attitude must have ' been misunderstood. He might inflict 1 heavier penalties, but in thi6 case, on " its merits, he Would fine defendant £5 1 and coßts. Contractors' Troubles. — William Henry Beanland and Henry Keats (Mr Cassidy) were charged with having on [ January 20 erected a building without • having given four days' notice to the ' City Council, for which Mr Cowlishaw 1 appeared. They were fined 20s and costs each. Dismissed. — John Robertson (Mr Donnelly) was- charged by his wife, Agnes j Robertson (Mr Hunt), with persistent cruelty and neglecting to keep up payments towards her support. She applied for an order under the Married i Persons' Summary Separation Act. Evidence was given by defendant's wife and children, but the Magistrate said that he was not going to make people, on such facts, come and apply for orders. There might have been some grounds on a charge of failing to provide for his wife, but as both the husband and wife were earning' respectable livings and had separated mutually, he would i not interfere. The case would be dismia&du