MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1613, 14 February 1866, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHBISTCHUBCH. Tuesday, Ebb. 13. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., E.M.) John Ellis charged with being drunk and disorderly, and resisting the police in the execution of their duty, was fined 10s., with the alternative of 24 hours imprisonment. CIVIL CASKS. Hbathcoxb Boad Boabd v. Habvbt axd Othbks.—These were claims for rates. Defendants did not appear, and judgment was given against them. Pbibcb v. Day.—This was a claim for 15s. for the value of a saddle cloth, and had been partly heard on a previous day. Mrs. Prince deposed to seeing the cloth in the Jrard of defendant, with whose grandson it was eft in charge. Jos. Day, re-called, contradicted the evidence of Mrs. Prince, and said the cloth was not left in his charge* — Benyon deposed to seeing the saddle cloth on the horse shortly before its arrival at defendant's yard. Defendant said that he went down into the yard shortly after the saddle was left, and saw no saddle-cloth with it, such as the one said to be lost. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that it appeared to him from the evidence that the saddlecloth was in the yard. It was claimed as soon as missed. He must give judgment for the amount claimed, 155., with costs, except those of the last adjournment at plaintiff's request. Bbll v. Benyon.—This was a claim for £4. Dr. Foster appeared for the defendant. Sarah Bell, plaintiff, deposed to giving defendant a £5 note at a sale to pay for something she bought, costing Bs., and he only returned 12s. She did not notice the mistake till next evening. Cross-examined: Witness got the £5 note from a person in Court, and had no other note in her possession. William Williams deposed to seeing the plaintiff give the £5 note to defendant, and get Bs. change. Plaintiff had not been well, through fever, and it affected her at times. Cross-examined: Witness was standing next plaintiff, and saw her open the note, which was an old one for £5 on the Bank of New Zealand. Robt. Russell deposed to paying plaintiff a short time previously £15, including a£s note. Defendant deposed that he was at the sale and received moneys. By the account - book produced, the accounts balanced on the assumption that he ha.i received £1 from plaintiff. — Kerr deposed to receiving moneys from the last witness, and going over the accounts with him the day after the sale, and finding them correct. His Worship gave judgment for defendant. Cassbm, v. Fobd.—This was a claim for £12 108, for shearing 1240 sheep. Mr. Harper appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Garrick for defendant. Plaintiff deposed to his being engaged by defendant to shear sheep at 20s a hundred. Plaintiff had shorn 1240 sheep, and had demanded payment. Defendant grumbled at the work, and plaintiff wished to leave, but defendant paid him | nothing. Witness was well acquainted with < shearing. | Cross-examined: His dispute with defendant j did not arise from his having a wish to go to the races. He did not remember having the rules of the shed read to hjm, but noticed them on a board. Defendant deposed that plaintiff came to him on 29th December, and defendant told him he might go on next day and shear in accordance with the rules in the shed. Plaintiff wished to go away to the races, and on Tuesday, the first day of the races, plaintiff appeared to be working badly. Plaintiff wished to leave, but defendant would not permit him to do so, and pointed out the rules by which a t maa was bound not to leave without permission until the sheep were thorn. Cross-examined: Witness merely pointed out the rules, but did not read them to plaintiffi These rules were not general in New Zealand, but were in Australia. His Worship gave judgment for defendant. Vbbnbb v. UABDiira. —This was a claim for £2, for a week's salary, in lieu of notice. Plaintiff deposed that he was engaged at £3 a week, as property-master at the Prince of Wales Theatre, but afterwards received a week's notice and made a fresh engagement at £2 a week, and had been discharged without notice. , Cross-examined: Had asked to go on as a comic singer, bat did not know why he was refused. Haa never said that he was property-master at the City of London Theatre. Defendant said that he met plaintiff at Lyttelton, and he said he could play, sing comic songs, and act as property-master; plaintiff engaged him, and found him incompetent! Had given him notice, and received a receipt on final discharge. Defendant told plaintiff after the £3 engagement was at an end, that he might stop tho next week at £2. George Cooper, stage carpenter, and John Willis, scenic painter, deposed as to the incompetency of Verner to act as property master. His Worship gave judgment for defendant Gbiffithsv. Spsschlt.—This was a claim for attending at the court on a summons at 30a for plaintiff and 10s for his wife. Plaintiff deposed that he received a dog, about four years ago, from a man named Ashby, and a short time ago, saw it with a registered collar, marked "Mr. Speechly, Esq.," on, in the possession of Mr. Speechly. He got tho dog, and it was afterwards taken away from him by defendant's olerk. He then got hold of the dog, and was summonsed for it, attended at court, but the case had been withdrawn, and he sued now for his expenses. Defendant said ho had a dog given him by a man named Walker, and afterwards, heard it waa in plaintiff's possession. He said he would summons him, but the dog came back, and the summons was withdrawn. His Worship gave judgment for 6s, the usual allowance. Fullbb v. Kohlb*. —This was a claim for wages. Mr. Macfarlane appeared for the defendant, and admitted the amount; but said that defendant had made the assignment produced and was protected by it, as it had been approved by the Supreme Ccurt and was signed by three-fourths of the creditors, as per affidavit of Mr. Moorhouse produced. His Worship explained to the plaintiff that if a deed of arrangement were made, it bound all the creditors under oertain conditions. If threefourths should agree in writing to approve of the deed, it bound all the creditors. If plaintiff wished to make an application, he must go to the Supreme Court. He must dismiss tho oase.