CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XLIII, Issue 6369, 17 February 1886, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

. TtJISDAT, FXBBVAST 16. [Before E. Beetham, E.M., and B. Westenra, JJP., Esq.] DBtrNKßWHßse.—John Tomba, charged with being found drunk while in charge of a horse and cart, was fined £.1, and on the representation of the police, an order was made prohibiting publicans in Christohnrch supplying him with intoxicating liquor for

one year. ~ Axuoed Hobsb Sxrauho.—John Grant and James Anderson, boys about eighteen years old, on remand from Banguna, were charged with stealing, on January 17th, one mare, valued at £20 ; one pony, valued at .£lO j one saddle, stirrups, and girtli, valued at M ; and one saddle. &c., valued atJß2lo3;thepropertiyofJameeFraßer. toj snector Pender said thatone of the animals, withlte eaddte and bridle, had beenfound in the poeseesion of the accoeed at

Rangiora on January i6£o, and the other waa subsequently found at Culverden. The lot was stolen from Christohurch. Aβ the witnesses could sot be got in from the country in time for the present sitting, he asked for a remand for eight days. Tao remand was granted.

Allkqkd Assault.—Arthur Lawrence Fernshaw, having assaulted Thomas Wilford whoe~urtr boat, on the River Avon, on February 13th, obtained an adjournment till the following day for the purpose of obtaining his witnesses. Another man, named Charles Brown, associated with him. in the charge, had not been served with the summons

CmiTCisS-—lntfie cases'CiiyVouncil ;T Easter* a claim for £2 17s, for City* Council rates., and same v same for jßjfi 10fl for Drainage Board rates, at a former! hearing, Mr Stringer, for defendant, hadf icaised an objection that there was net evidence that the statutory notice of the'! jfebt had been served upon the defendant. The case was adjourned for the!; Attendance of the Council's solicitor—ifi ;|be Council thought necessary. Mr Smith, applied- for costs, which were fallowed as for one case JEI 43. Linwood ' Town Board v McConnel, claim JBB 12a Id for rates 1885. Mr Weston appeared for the Board. The defendant had a house in Linwood which was sometime occupied by one Seal. The Board struct its rate on Jane 16th, 18S5, and served him with the notice, but he having become bankrupt and left the district the Board made a claim on the owner on January 6th, 1886, and being resisted now brought its aotion to recover. Defendant pleaded that the Board having, by its delay in collection, failed to get the rate from Beal, had no right to fall back on the owner. Another and more important objeotion was that the notice served on defendant was not in accordance, with the form set forth in the fifth Eohedule of the Bating Act, 1882, inasmuch as it did not sufficiently describe the property, the currency of the rate, and its amount especially that it merely said the pro- ! perty was "part of Rural Seotion 26." DeI fendant had several properties, parts iof that section, which was 100 acres in extent. He quoted, in support of hie contention, a decision given by Mr Justice Williams in an appeal case. The Walton Park Coal and Pottery Co. v the Taieri County Council reported in N.Z. L.J, 1886, p. 315. Mr Weeton having replied; judgment was deferred. Benn v McMahon, chum £10, Mr McConnel for plaintiff, Mr Izard far defendant. The plaintiff alleged tbat a house whioh ehe occupied in Queen street, Christchurch, wae destroyed in her absence by fire. It was insured in the Equitable Insurance Company, and their servant. Inspector Maddison, salved certain furniture, which he caused to be conveyed to, and etored in, a shed belonging to defendant, and used by him as a carpenter's workshop. Some days afterwards, Mrs Barm having adjusted her claim with the Insurance Company, applied to defendant for the goods, who refused to deliver them until £2 hadbeen paidhim for Btorage. Reference to the parties' solicitors ensued, but defendant still retained the goods, and plaintiff now sued for their value. Defendant pleaded tbat although he at first refused to give up the things, he did not do bo after he became aware that hie claim, if he had any, was on the Insurance Company. After hearing evidence, the plaint was slightly altered, and judgment was fiven for the amount claimed, to be reuced to £1 if the goods were delivered up to plaintiff in twenty-four hours. Iα Rayner v Gardiner, claim 16s 6d, and Hawkins v Trotter, claim £3, for grazing fees, judgments were for plaintiffs. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with costs in Barrett t Nicholls, £5; Hobbs and Goodwin v Thompson, .£11; Rayner v McDonald, £l 6a 9dj Speneley and Co. v Parkinson, Jill 17e 7dj same v Akere, £9 6s 8d; Booth and Son v Frame, £1 Is 9d; Harris and Son v Cook , , £8 2a; MoDonaldv Hanok, £2 10* j Twenty man and Cousin v Hyde, £36 12a Id; and Davis v Dineen, JB6. Patterson t Trotter was adjourned till February 23rd.