CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XXXVI, Issue 5083, 22 December 1881, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

TOT3DAY, December 30. OtvrL Ojjhs.—Moon v Wilmot. This mi a judgment lammoni. Mr Perceral appeared for plaintiff. Defendant, as the itsne of a ehar Ke 0 ( aiseult on plaintiff, had been ordered, two months ego, to pay £5 special damages to plaintiff, and eotta of Court, amounting together to £9. This had not been dona 5 6 gtuntnoni had been taken out for the ani'nat and plaintiff obtained judgment, which had not been estisSed. In answer to Mr Perosval, defendant said that her bt»i-----i ness v « lectures* bad been onproduetiTe **°oo tie affair *t She Fapanui Town

Hall, She wu at present absolutely without means. Although living at an hotel she was unable to pay for her accommodation. She ! had no difficulty in getting credit for that. I She was known to many hotelkeepers, and as the punctually paid her debts when in fundi, (hey never refused to trait her. She had got a verdict against the directors of the Pepanui Town Hall, bat had not yet received the money. The Magistrate suggested that plain* tiff should take an order on the award of the other Court. -Mr Stringer, who was present, said even if that could be done he fancied there were others who had prior claims on it. He suggested, as amievt eurice, that plaintiff was there to prove that defendant had had means to pay the debt since the judgment, whioh had not been done. The Magistrate said th\t might be so, bat the Bench, under the cireunutanoes, saw no reason why defendant should be protected by that Court. The debt was a small one, had been owirg a long time, and must now be paid immediately, or, in default, de« fendant would be imprisoned for fourteen da»s. Church v Junes, claim £10 12s 41. Mr Izard appeared for defendant. This was a case in whioh a daughter was alleged to have guaranteed the payment for some goods for her father. At a previous hearing the evidence for plaintiff had been fully gone into. Some additional evidence for defendant was now brought forward, but judgment was finally given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with oosts. Judgments went by defaults in Fahrman v Btevens, £10 6s; Olewotth v Fisher, £4 10s; and Young v Parkes, £1. In Billens v Butt, judgmcat went for plaintiff without dispute; Rose v Roes and Martin v Elliot were adjourned till January 4th; Wilson v White, plaintiff was nonsuited with ooste and solicitor's fee, £1 Is, Wednesday, Dbcbmbeb 21. [Before J. Ollivier, S.E, HL B. Webb and T. Acland, J.P.'s.] DRTOXBNHKSB.—For this offence, Joanna Gallagher and Jos. Gale were fined each ss, and ordered to pay cab hire. William Withell, who was said to have been suffering from the effeots of exoeseive drinking, and who, when arrested on the previous evening, had on him a pistol, whioh had been recently discharged, was brought up charged with lunacy from drink. The police stated that the result of a medical examination did not appear to warrant the man's detention, although he had evidently been giving way to great dissipation lately. He was ordered to pay the doctor's fee, admonished, and discharged. Obsobnb LANQTrAQB.—H. W. Price was charged with making use of obscene language in a public thoroughfare. He pleaded " Guilty," but said he had been greatly exasperated by the behavior of a band of larrikins, who set upon him and knooked him about. He did not know what he had aaid at the time. He was fined 10', or in default to be imprisoned for forty-eight hours. Application job Protection Obdbb.— Jane Withell applied for an order for the protection of her earning, and for the custody of her five ohildren. Sbe deposed that her husband, W. Withell, was a habitual drunkard, and she detailed several instances of his late gross cruelty. Hβ had turned her and her ohildren out of the house, and had more than onoe threatened to murder her. The order was made as prayed, defendant being ordered to contribute 30s per week for their support, and to pay costs of court and solicitor's fee. Mr Joyce appeared for the applicant. Civil Casbs. —Ellis v Morgan, £2 15s, for medioal attendance; Mr Spaokman for plaintiff j judgment for plaintiff with costs.— Purdie v Aitkin, claim £4 17s for rates said to have been paid on behalf of defendant; Mr Martin for plaintiff; plaintiff was unable to produoe an agreement, whioh he said had been made, and was nonsuited, with costs.— Emerson v Draahoe, £1 6s 6i for labor done, brioklaying, &o.; plaintiff proved that the work for whiob the claim was made had been scamped ; judgment for defendant, with costs and expenses of witnesses, 16s 6d.— Murphy v Quin, £9 4i 63, claim for & balance of an account; plaintiff had not furnished particulars, and was nonsuited.— Young v Nathan, claim £1 Bs. ralue of eight boxes of oranges placed in defendant's hands for sale by anotion. Defendant ttated that he had received, put up for sale, and knooked down the goods as oranges to a purchaser, who, however, refused to take delivery, as they were nothing but pulp. Defendant had to pay a man to remove the boxes as refuse. He had given notioe to plaintiff as soon as [ pouihle. as it was found that the boxes did I not contain what they were represented to do. Judgment was given for defendant, with oosts of Court and expenses of two witnesses. Permanent Investment and Loan Association v Pepper, claim £15 18s 3d. Judgment for ' plaintiffs without d spate. Matthews and Gower v Gower, claim £10. Mr Raphael appeared for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs stated that they had endorsed a bill as an accommodation for defendant, and they had received no benefit from it. Defendant had failed to meet it when it fell due, and plaintiffs having paid it off now, sued for recovery of the amount. Defendant deposed that he had lent his brother, one of the plaintiffs, £5, and the bill was negotiated to pay off that sum and accommodate defendant with the balance, with the understanding between them that they should jointly pay off the whole. No evidence was forthcoming in support of this statement, and judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costs. Ernest v Green, sen., £1 16j, for rent, was adjourned till January 4,±, for the production of further evidence. Ernest v Green, olaim £1 9s, the amount of an IO U. Hβ pleaded infanoy, but not being ready with proof, the oase was adjourned till January 4th for ita production. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default in Irving v Grindrod, £2 2s; Wilson v Barrlnger, £7 13s 6d'j Hazard v Gregory, £4 15s; Marks v Newman, £18 10»; and Stenhouso v Hoffman, £3 19s. Cothor v Doyle was adjourned till January 14th.