CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5461, 21 March 1883, Page 1 (Supplement)

CHRISTCHURCH.

Tuesday, Maech 20. [Before E. Beetham, Esq., 8.M.; F. Hobbs, J.P.; F. J. Kimbell, J.P.; and K. Westenra, J.P. j Bears.} Deunkenness.— Thomas Wood waa fined 10s. Two first offenders were fined ss. Yaobanct.—Margaret Thompson waa charged with being without visible means of subsistence. Sergeant Mason stated that the prisoner had led a most disreputable life, keeping a brothel, and otherwise misconducting herself. His Wojcshiip. thought tba,t the case had not been properly proceeded with, and dis-. misled, it. ' " Ejpsee§l.sjsej{T —Pierey Freeman, arrested on a warrant by Constable R. Neill, was charged, embessling the earn of SI 4s 6d, the monies of Biohard Marrick. The prisoner had been employed by the prcseoutor, who is a batcher, as an assistant, and the sum in question had been received by him and appropriated to his own use. The police applied for and obtained a remand until 28th inst. Prohibition Oedeb.—Thomas Henry Wheeler was granted a prohibition order for six months on the application of his wife. Cira Cases.—P. Selig v H. E. Nathan. This was an action for £20 damages sustained by the defendant, a money lender, having assaulted and beaten the complainant, one of the proprietors of" Society , ' on the 7th inst. Mr Stringer appeased, fc^ ( ;the plaintiff, and Mr.McC^p^ellor.xhe d<er 1 fendant. ovexuna th,§> Mr Btringerment^ed^|h^ttkpvfi&ri ojt ti\e preewat c£ge one in which ilZe defendant figured Ysry conspicuausJiy, vi*., Weekes v Nathan, a, report o| which, together with a full repojt of the words used by the Besident Magistrate (Mr Ollivier) when givingjudgment, had appeared in the " Lyttelton Times." The latter part of this repcirj; had found its way into the ej^umns , of " Society." The case ib qnjestion was onp in which the by the. hocuft ; popvk pjroifess of »o4ee, 4c'., the, interest on a small sum of 4fio to about JS4O. On March 7th defendant had accosted plaintiff while in Mr Fleming's shop, «*d, charging bid mtk

the authorship of the article -which appeared in " Society," attacked him with a stick. After hearing evidence, the Bench said nothing could justify the assault. The paragraph in question was nothing but a fair comment upon the case, and if it were otherwise it would not excuse the assault. Aβ to the question of damages, the pain or expense had not appeared to be very great, and the plaintiff had not deemed it necessary even to consult Mr Milner Stephen. As to the indignity inflicted, there did not seem to hare been such as: would have been the case had the assault been publicly made. The plaintiff had given notes of the affair for publication, and, but for that, would perhaps have been awarded more damages than £o and costs, for which judgment waa given.—Judgments went for plaintiffs by default in Hobday and Co. v P. Pavitt, JBI2 5s 9d; Bank Australasia v same, JE2I 10s 3d ; Howe and Co. v Fletcher, JES3 15s 9d; Matson and Co. v Morse, £37 9s; Brabner v Poster, £6 11s; Eadcliffe and Co. v Murphy, JJ4 6a 3d; Duncan v Anderson, £7 17e; Fergusson v Allen, Jgl 14s.