ASHBURTON—FRIDAY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1604, 8 July 1887, Page 2

AS HBURTON—FRIDAY.

(Before Mr Scaly J.P. Mr Thomas, J.P,, Mr D. Williamson, J.P. and Mr H. Friedlauder, J,P.) FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS. William Henry Hawkins pleaded guilty to oharges of obtaining a sum of £10 from Christina Scott by means of a valueless oheqne and £3 from W. J. Hayes by means of a valueless cheque. —The accused had been brought up previously and had pleaded guilty to the oharges; He had been placed under the Probation Act, but had failed to comply with the conditions of hia release, He was aooord. ingly arrested and the police asked the Banoh to deal with him as. If he had never been before the Court before.—-In reply to the Bench, the acbuaed aaid .that a remittance he expeoted did not borne by the lest mail. He asked the Court to deal with him at once as had he known the worry that would be entailed on him by being released;under the Probationers Act he would not have agreed to that course being adopted m his case formerly.—After consultation, the. Bench ordered the accused rto be imprisoned for three months on each charge, the sentences to ran oonourrejoily; CIVIL OASES. t. . Soath Rakaia Road Board v Allison, claim 12s4d, rates due.—Mr Parnell to* plaintiffs; judgment by ; default .Jot amount claimed and coats, . ' ].■£: South Rakaia Road Board v Love, claim £2 03 Id, rates due.—Mr Parnell for plaintiffs.: Judgment by default.,, MoGuire v Gibson, claim £6 6b 7d.— Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Crisp for defendant. The parties to this action were resident at Wakanui, and the claim was one for balance alleged to be owing on work done and potatoes supplied. The evidence of the plaintiff, defendant and T. Leßter having been taken, Judgment was given for defendant with coats." " Gray v Oompton, claim £2 Ua~Mc Wilding for plaintiff. This was a case m which the plaintiff sued for the reoovery of driving fees alleged to have been illegally claimed by the defendant, a poondkeaper, ami paid by the plaintiff. frMr Odßp stated that it had been arranged that he should conduofc v the defence, but a few days ago his ollent had written to him saying that it was likely tbe case would be settled. The defendant was not m attendance and he (Mr Crisp) thought, that he was under some misunderstanding. Under these oircumatancea, although he would not apply for an adjournment, a© would ask the Bench to graat the defendant a rehearing if he dfjired It.— The Bench, after a brief consultation, decided not to hear the case because Oompton, as poundkeeper WJ9 a tenant tff the Borough Council and the four Justices on the Bgtjch were Councillors. The case "was therefore adjourned till next day. The Court then rose.