MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4786, 4 December 1880, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTOKUBOH.

THU__D_y, DBC-HBSB 2. j [Before J. Ollivier and B. Westenra, j ___ -_a5.,Jj?.'6.3 <£"_. C_sh_ j ~___£q v Daly, £15. Mr fsnger for plaintiff. Mr Holmes for der~- a dentist, had drawn a 2? 9 Ei anoercf teeth for defendant and his and had supplied each of them with" teeth in suffide-t __mbertos__M *p_«Bl_tß new eats. The jobs together came fLjg s . «f which £20 had been p__U refused to pay the balance ■** which {ij e present action was

brought Defendant pleaded that a bargain had been made between the parties, by which plaintiff, for a certain stun, undertook to supply hie wife with teeth in lieu of those drawn, which would completely satisfy all masticatory requirements, and ano leave their articulation perfect. The opera-tona on Mrs Daly had been i» weuese, but the teeth made for defendant were a misfit, entirely useless. He had never succeeded in keeping them in hie mouth only for very short periods at intervals, they were extremely Hiffimlfc to adjust; ho could hardly get them into his mouth even after springs had been fitted to them, and when in their place he suffered exernciating pain. On one occasion he had to take them out while in church. The apparatus was exhibited in Court. Defendant was willing to pay the balance of plaintiff's demand less a charge for extracting the stump*, if a workable set of teeth was supplied, as agreed upon. Mr Seymour deposed that, in his opinion, the teeth in their present state could not be used, and it would cost £17 to put them into working order. Mrs Daly stated that the teeth made for her by plaintiff fitted her exactly. The bargain with him was made on the conditions stated by her husband. Mr Stringer said plaintiff had already altered the teeth once, and was quite willing to make them fit properly if opportunity was given. The Bench thought, under the circumstances, plaintiff mnat be nonsuited. Mr Stringer pointed out that a payment having been made on account, that course could not be taken. Judgment was then given for defendant, eaob party to pay their own costs. McCraoken v Tutton, claim £8. Mr Beeves appeared for defendant. This was an action for damages snsfelined as alleged by a breach of warrantry. A horse ewap took place between the parties. The mare coming from defendant waa understood to be in foal, but the supposition turned ont to be wrong, and the amount abovenamed was claimed as compensation. The evidence showed that no guarantee of the mare being in foal had been given, and judgment was for defendant, with costs. Sellars vßradshaw and Isherwood, £1. This was a claim for goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for 7s. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in Hopkins and Co. r Isherwood, £1 15s 2d; Smith and Co. v Heath, 9s; Tischv Thiele, £6 llsj Peacock vPatman, £2 Is 6i; Crown Brewery v Western, 13s 6d j same v Bennett, 15s ; and Prina and Ellis v AlleD, £9 19a 6d. Judgment waa foi' defendant in Lundy v McCormiok, lie.

I I_U_>AY, D-OK-CBBR 3. (Before H. J. Tancred and B. Walton, Esqs., J.P.V_ Dbxhtehnh-SB.—Foe this offence John Qoinn was fined 10», and Is cab hire. Mary Ann Greaves was fined 10s; and for a first offence a man was fined ss. Vagbahoy .—P. W. Oldham was charged with having nc visible means of support. The police said that he is partially paralysed, weak in intellect, and unable to work for his living. He had given himself up asking to be provided with the necessaries of life. He had been several times in gaol and once in the Lunatic Asylum. He was remanded till Monday next, to be kept in Addington gaol, and to be examined by a medical man as to his sanity. Failing- to Pbovtdb.—William labling, who was arrested on warrant for deserting his wife at Southbridge, was remanded till Saturday, to be brought up at that plaoe.

Fowl Sxe_xxko. — Mark Kearvall and Joseph Hannam were brought up on remand charged with stealing three fowls, value 6s. Mr Joyce appeared for Hannam. John Crew, a cabman, living near the South town belt,, stated that on the morning of November 30th he found the front door of bis fowl ho-Be broken and three fowls were missing. Later in the day, he looked in a cart belonging to the men, which was then near the White Hart stand and prisoners with it. There was a dog in it which was for sale. Witness offered to trade for it if Kearvall, whom he was addressing, would take fowls in exohange. Kearvall agreed to this, saying he had just sold two pairs at the Oity Hotel. Witness afterwards went to the City Hotel and saw the fowls [produced] that had had been sold by KearvaU. He identified two of the fowls as belonging to him. He informed the police. Cross-examined, he said he had been told that the man had been seen hanging, about the place. He suspected him of the theft, and his proceedings were the result of the information he had received. Geo. Marshall deposed to seeing Han-am in his fish cart near Crew's house about - o'clock on the morning of the 30th ult. MrsE. Oookson, wife of the licensee of the Oity Hotel, deposed to purchasing two fowls from on the morning of the 30th ult. She recognised one of those in Court; the other she was not certain of. She prisoners were together at the sale. Annie Joy, of the Boyal Hotel, deposed to purchasing two fowls from one of the prisoners on the morning of November 30th. Two of the fowls in Court were those she then purchased. Detective Neil deposed to arresting prisoners separately. Kearvall said he was lodging with Hannam. Hannam said he got the fowls he sold at the Oity Hotel, from Kearvall, which the latter said was not true. After the arrest witness searched Hannam's house and found a large quantity of fowls' feathers. In cross-eramination witness stated that numerous roost robberies have lately taken place, and he searched ■ the house for traces of them. In answer to the Bench witness said he knew Hannam to be a notorious thief. He had been repeatedly convicted of petty robberies. Kearvall was not known to the police. Constable Gorman saw prisoners in the cart driving southward down Colombo street about four o'clook on the morning of November 30tb. It was quite daylight. Mr Joyce, addressing the Court, said he intended to put Kearvall in the box, who would explain how he got possession of the fowls. The Bench objected at first to allow a prisoner accused ef larceny to go into tho witness box, but after argument it was allowed. Prisoner Kearvall being sworn, stated that he and Hannam bought three pairs of fowls at half-past six on tha morning of November 20th from a man he met in the street whom he did sot know. He further stated that on the ____ing of the 30th ult. he did not get out of bed before half-past five o'clock, when he went out alone. Hannam had gone out previously. They met, and afterwards, at about 6.50, purchased the fowls from the man as before stated, and whose name was "Jack." Witness did not know Jack except by having seen him a few times in bar-rooms or in the street, It two or three witnesses swear that he had been seen in the street on the morning of NiTamber 30th, before half-past five o'clock, they would be swearing falsely. Witness, in answer to the question repeated, said he got up at four o'clock, and reached the Oity Hotel at half-past five o'clock. Mrs Hannam being cautioned not to criminate hsr husband, said she could not say whether slept in their house on the night of the 29th-30th November. He and a man named Jack occupied separate rooms at the baok of the house. J. Hannam, sworn, stated that having been drunk on the night of November 29th he went out at four o'clock the next morning. He tried several places without success, and when coming away from the Terminus Hotel he met the witness Marshal and asked him for a match. He waa atone t_l half-past five or thereabouts, when he met Kearvall at the City HoteL They had & drink, and after-ward-wall_wl up towards the Queen s HoteL Witness then described the purchase of the fowls, which he said waa effected by Kearvall, who got the money from ban, _nd_brougbt them to him in tho etreefc. He did not see the man from whom they we-e bought. He did not know whether Jack who lodged at h» house was the Jack, named by Kearvall. Crc_i.e_amined-He fdid not »cc Sear. vail before he lefiV his own house. That was four o'clock. KearvaU might have got up at that tm.e without Tub knowledge. He persisted m saying that he was alone ia the cart when ha went down town. Being pressed, he said he would not pcsitivelvlwear that he was alone. He was muddled with drink, but he behaved there was not anybody wSh him when leaving his own house or in &c earl. He saw Goodwin, thabill.poster, near the Teramms earheron the morSngof the SOth thanhalf-past five,jtafc he did or the man Jack, who might have been elo§e to *"*• out his knowledge. He was not, to ledge, in Mertou's Hotel with Kearvaß and Jack before half-pee* & ™l*¥ might hays been, for ha waa drank. Tha wnnpietoa th£ ev_ie_ee. Tho Bene* Bonsaered the case arainst -he prisoners sum«en% proved. There, ha- 6ee°- * omß ffing statement* Bade, ot* 6» **& ; reaesined that the stolen fowls had hen soM by P"scnen, whoaeoountod fat^E* 8 * 810 ® *? wyingthey go. them from ©fle«e*_>■« should have bean produced if they wasted.to clear themselves. Se_fce__*--*h--* _aas_M imprisonment each, with bar- Ww*»