KAIAPOI.

Press, Volume XLI, Issue 6066, 24 February 1885, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

Monday, Fbbbuaby 23. [Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M., and Dr. GUes, BJM.J Civil Casks.—Gallagher Bros, t J. Spriggs, -330. Defesdant denied liabUity os the ground that his wife had obtained the goods without his privity or consent. Mr T. Gallagher, one of the plaintiffs, explained that defendant seme time in September had recognised the account/ and subsequently his employer made an offer to pay 10s in the £. When this was refused the defendant's employer then sent a cheque for 15s in the £, asd an offer to arrange for the balance before tbe case came on. , This not being completed; the cheque for "fhe 15s is the £ was returned. Judgment was gives for plaintiff for £28 8s Bd, being the amount claimed, less interest charged. C. B. Bichards v J. Vincent. Is this case an order was made for payment of 2b 6d weekly, or, in default, fourteen days* imprisonment. Am Application.—ls the case of C. Hansen v W. Burnip, in which judgment was given last week for plaintiff, aad defendant gave sotice of appeal, Mr Kippenberger, applied for leave to have, the time for giving notice of appeal extended, pointing out that, in the three days allowed the defendant had sot been able to find any Of the officials of the Court with whom to enter into the bond for carrying on the appeal. case, to applied to have any further proceedings of this. Court stayed tUI he. could suuee a motion is the Supreme Court. Mr Nald t, for defesdant, objected.' Af *sx consultation, Mr Whitefoord said he would have been glad to have given every facility for appeal on the able arguments advanced

at the last sitting by Mr Kippenberger, but the neglect in this instance in sot entering into the requisite bond rested with the defendant. No notice was sent to either himsflf (the Bemdent Magistrate) or to the Clerk of the Court about tbe inatier till Friday—a day after the time for filing the bond had expired—and, therefore, to allow it to be entered into now would really prove fatal to the case in ita progress to the higher Court. In this view, his brother magistrate, a geotlem&n of great experience, was agreed, and the application would not be granted. Mr Kippenberger applied for a. stay of further proceedings in the issue of a distress warrant. The Reside at Magistrate explained that entirely rested with the plaintiff. He could only deal with such a matter in the case of illness of defendant, or aome similar reason, but, in this instance, if it wa3 the plaintiff's request, it must issue. Mr Nalder was understood to siy that the only course open to the other side would be to settle the matter. Mr Kippenberger intimated his intention of applying for an injunction from the higher Court to stay the progress of the warrant till argument had been heard on points of law raised.