RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume XIV, Issue 1865, 7 April 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Chbistchtjbch—April 6. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] DBXrNKBNNBSa. John Nichols, in custody, was charged with having been drunk and incapable on the previous evening. It being prisoner's first offence he was dismissed with a caution. CASK. Quartley v. Beckett —Judgment summons, £4 3s. An order was made that defendant should pay the amount on or before the 7th April, or be imprisoned for one month. Lyttblton—April 6. [Before Wm. Donald, Esq., R.M.] CITED CASES.

In the following cases judgments were given for the plaintiffs for the amounts claimed and costs:—Miles and Co. v Grey, £18 16s 6d ; Parkinson and Co. v Jeffrey, £2 10s 3d; Graham v Scott, £1 12s; Chapman v Ookford, £3. . In the case of Graham v Rosser—claim £5 10a—judgment was given for plaintiff for £4 15s j costs divided. Kaiapoi—April 6. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., K.M., and C. Dudley, Esq., J.P.] POLICE CASES. Michael Clisham, charged with violently assaulting Mr Lynskey, the baliff to the Court, on the previous evening, near Woodend, was fined £5, or in default to be imprisoned for one month with hard labor. Prisoner chose the latter punishment. j WILFUL DAMAGE TO PEOPEBTY. W. Pinching, W. Burnip, J. Sims, and A. Clark were charged by W. Paish with committing wilful damage to his property by throwing stones and bricks against his house on Wednesday sennight last. J. L. Wilson and C. Oram, who had been attracted to Paish's residence about midnight on the night in question by his cries of " Murder/ stated that they saw the defendants near the premises, but did not see the damage committed, and the complainant himself was unable to identify the prisoners as the persons who committed the damage. Defendant Clark was at the time about two chains from the complainant's premises, and the others were on an adjacent section occupied by Mr Pinching. The case was ultimately dismissed. BESOTTING- CATTLE. J. Hessey was charged by J. Stokes with rescuing four horßes while being driven to the pound, and fined £20. CLAIM TOE MAINTENANCE. W. Tinkler was charged by M. A. Harper with refusing to maintain her child, he, as she alleged, being its father. Case dismissed. CIVIL CASES. Gundry v Birch and Co —This was an interpleader case whioh stood adjourned from last sitting. Mr Porter appeared for defendants, and Mr Duncan for plaintiff. The action was to upset a bill of sale held over Mr Henwood's property by Messrs Birch and Co, against which a judgment of the Court in favor of Mr Gundry had been carried into effect, and on the goods included in the bill of sale. Mr Duncan contended that the bill of sale was evidently framed in such a way as to give one creditor a claim prior to other creditors. The summons in Gundry v Henwood's case was issued two days before tha bill of sale was executed. He quoted authorities to prove that the making of a bill of sale required formal possession of the goods therein specified to bo taken. Mr Porter replied at length, contending that the bill of sale was valid. The Bench ultimately ruled in claimants' favor.

No other cases of importance were disposed of.