Untitled

Press, Volume XIV, Issue 1884, 29 April 1869, Page 2

E-Alapoi—-April 27. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M., and 0. Dudley, Esq, J.P.] POLICE CASES. W. Burnip, of the Kaiapoi hotel, and 0, Oram, of the Pier hotel, 'were charged that they did on Sunday last supply drink to one Benson contrary to the provisions of the Public House Ordinance. The first defendant was dismissed, the latter was fined £5 and costs, it being proved that he had supplied liquors on that day. J. Petersen, charged with a breach of tho Police Ordinance in allowing a goat to hs tethered in a public thoroughfare, was fined 10s. OJVIL OASES. ! Forfcy-fcwo civil oases were down for hearing, those of ;Fanislow occupying tbe attention of the Court some hours, though containing nothing of real interest to tho publio. The Court opened at the usual hour, 11 a.m., end did not adjourn till 8.30 p.m., candles being brought in during the latter part of the pro* ceedings. All the cases were disposed of. Fanislow v Fowler—-Claim £97 18a; eet-oS filed £100. This case was brought in consequence of a dispute between the parties who owned a small mob of sheep relative to their disposal, driving, and other matters. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 15s, each party to pay his own coats. Mr Joynt appeared for the defendant. Fanislow v Young and Fowler—Claim £48 2s 10d. This olaim in part arose outof the plaintiff's connection with the defendants ia the former transaction, being for board, &c. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £18 10s 1W« . . _i Grahato v Brewens—Claim £25, being the value of a mare alleged to have been sold to defendant. The only material evidence in this case was that of Mr Oram, who it seemed bad been offered the mare in question by plamtil., but they could not come to terms, and the witness said he believed, so far as Brewens wm concerned, it was in a " blind bargain," that ac« Brewens was understood to have partly bougas the mare, so as to induce Mr Oram to he roow anxious to come to terms. Witness said itt could have purchased tl c mare from plaioiiti after the bargain with defendant was md w have been concluded. Defendant denied any purchase, and his wife, who was alflO sworn, stated that nhe refused to take delivery ot we mare from plaintiff. Judgment was ijpogW for the defendant, plaintiff to pay sohcilort fee, £2 2s. Mr Joynt appeared for oW da Whitlow v Garlick-Claim £8. There m a set-off file-1, £4 12s, but this, as no ejpjtoj been given to plaintiff,-wasfallowed. W claim of plaintiff was for defendant a board W ten weeks and two days. Defends J the charge of 16s per week "Jg was ample. Tho ease was ultimately and in the meanwhile the parties wer ottott* to come to a settlement without bringing J« again before the Court. -o-»«,i * g Eangiora and Mandeville Boad Board f Dudding-Claim 14a. J«^ ro « tiff for lis. In this case sessed! though he admitted on a fWJJJJj sionhavingpaid the amount for was given under a misappreheniion* -*« Bench thought the plaintiff ought to remit tlxo amount paid in error. Tni_*_riflnfc Same v Harper-Claim M* #• ™g^ t0 for plaintiffs by default of def«p<WV aP ffiher and Fairweather v Claim £3 13s. Judgment for plaint* °r default of defendant to appear.

'Rime v Hurse-Claim £7 set off filed £2, ST M Court, £2 9s. The clara was for !!_££ to fruit trees £5, and rent £2, of which itndant had paid the rent x»m into Court ?L the amount of damage he might have SfJ&ed to plamtif. property. The plainto defendant a hou_e, garden, and Shard On leaving it the plaintiff, found fople trees and fences damaged, for which fhlr now made a claim. The defendant m ftTing the rent withheld the £2 because IZntiS* stopped his boy from removing some SS, netting, hi* property, and which wm not fhr hi* statement) a fixture but simply hung « nails Two witnesses proved that the Lmaee was amply covered by 6a paid into Court A witness for plaintiff proved that the ~L netting was a fixture, at least ho should u«re preferred mating an arrangement with a Sndlord before attempting to remove it. The Bench gave judgment for the amount paid into Court, ruling also that the wire netting «aa a fixture, and thus quaahing the set off. Each party to pay their own costs. O'Conner v Stonyer —Claim for cutting sixteen end a half tons of flax at 7s per ton. It flooeared that plaintiff went to defendant with « man named Armstrong, and there understood ha was to cut this flax on defendant's account. Defendant proved otherwise, and by a witness that the agreement was with Armstrong, O'Conner having nothing to do with the matter, anleas Armstrong chose to employ him which witness believed was what was iatendei to be done. Plaintiff was non--8 Bes'wick and Hinge v Coles and Thompkins —Claim £21. This claim arose out of defendant*, who now own the Woodend Hotel and that estate, refusing to allow plaintiffs to remove certain crops, which they had bought on the estate at the time of its former owner going into tbe Bankruptcy Court. At the sale of the crops, hotel, &c, plaintiffs bought seven acres more or less oi crops, including wheat, potatoes, carrots, and peas, on the understanding that they were to be removed at their option till they matured. The wheat had been reaped, but the defendants refused to allow the Other crops to be touched, though plaintiffs had given them notice that they should institute proceedings if Obstructed at all. No time was specified for the crops to be removed in. Mr Thomp-ins at this stage asked for an adjournment, as his partner had not received his summons. The plaintiffs objected to the, adjournment. The Bench said the evidence * ready would be received, but Mr Thompkins should have applied for the adjournment before. After hearing what evidence there was, the case would then be adjourned for Mr Cole's attendance. O. Hep worth, auctioneer, stated he knew the estate of land on which the Woodend hotel stood. He remembered selling the standing crops on it by order of the trustee in A. Ward's estate. He sold a lot of seven acres and a-half, containing wheat, potatoes, carrots, and peas to the plaintiffs. The cropß were to remain on the land till they matured at the option of the purchasers. He received cash for the crops as on seven acres, but sold the lot as more or less ; if there bad been an acre more plaintiffs would reap the benefit of it. Mr Graham corroborated Mr Hepworth's evidence as to the quantity and time for removal of the crops. The case was then adjourned for a week. J. S. White v Hyland—Claim unsatisfied, j Judgment, £9 10s. Defendant was ordered to pay SA in a month, and £1 per week after or m default be committed to prison for three ' months. Flaxton School Committee v Campbell, Becker, Wilkinson, D. Todd, J. H. Caton, J. , Logan, L. Jackson, IV Baker, and J. Armstrong —Against each defendant the claim was £1* the school rate for the district at that amount per head. In most of the cases the \ collector's form had only been left or sent, and no subsequent demand made for the amounts. In all the cases judgment was given in favour of the plaintiffs. A Bimilar case against W. Lytiskey was adjourned for want of proof ihat he was living in the district when the rate was struck. Dudley v Elliott—Claim £$ 18s 6d. Unsatisfied judgment. Order made for. defendant to pay at the rate of £1 per week, or in default one month's imprisonment. W. D. Buddie v Burrows—Claim £60 lis 2d, dishonoured acceptance. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs.