MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XLIII, Issue 6370, 18 February 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHBISTCHUBCH. Wbbnxsday, Fjbbuaby 17. [Before B. Beetham, Esq., B.M.] Allsobd Assault. — Arthur Lawrence Fern shawand Charles Brown were charged with assaulting Thomas Wilford -oa February 18th. Mr Stringer appeared for the accused. Thomas Wilford, a College boy, stated that on the day named—a Saturday—he was out on the river Avon in a canoe. He left the boat-sheds about 2 p.m., and while paddlin gup stream a boat* in the stern of which' Brown was sitting, overhauled him, and in passing, the man who was rowing splashed. Witness remonstrated, and was again splashed. Witness then splashed back. Fernshaw at this time came up in another boat, and fastened the canoe's painter to one of his rowlocks. He then attempted to tow the canoe, but, failing in that, hauled up to the canoe, and lifted ite bow out of the water. Witness, fearing to be shot out, jumped,into Fernahaw's boat, but jumped short, and, landing on the gunwale, capsized it. The canoe went down as well. Witness' believed that Fen—haw intended-to capsiae him. There was" a jam of five or six boats at the place. Erßioomfield, who was present in another boat, corroborated Wjuord'a statement. There were five or six' boats there. Fernshaw appeared to try to capsize Wilford. The defendant, Brown, took no part in in the affair. Three of the boats contained about eight men, who, seemingly, were companions of the defendants. Mr Stringer said there Were a lot of. boats which got junmed. Fermthaw's boat -was fouled by Wfrford's canoe. Fernshaw took hold of it-to push it off. When Wilford got frightened, leaped 4 into Fen—haw's boat, and both were capsized. There appeared to be some rough fun previously, in which both sides splaaned each other. He called John Burton, who wm there. He said that the capsiae was purely accidental. In answer to Inspector Fender, the witness/ said Fernshaw's real name was Austins he did not know Brown's real name. Mr Beetham said he could not convict on the evidence,, but if ever a clear case of disorderly behaviour on the river was brought before him' the offending patties would .be severely punished. Case dismissed.

Crvn. CABS9.—White v Neno, claim £7 10b. Mr McConnel. for the defendant Plaintiff sued on an 1.0. U., but had .not attached a bill of particulars to the plaint. His Worship pointed this out as a bar to further progress. Mr- McConnel said he wished to go on as there was a valid defence. Plaintiff then said that he had become guarantor for payment for goods valued at £9 16j 9d bought by defendant from Mrs Dunsford. Defendant afterwards made a composition with bis creditors for 5a in the £. Plaintiff signed the composition deed on condition that he got the 1.0. U., defendant agreeing to pay it after the other creditors had been satisfied. Mr McConnel pointed out that this was fraud. His Worship said he would nonsuit plaintiff on the first point—that there was no mil of particulars attaohed to the plaint leaving him to take advice on themotter. Nonsuited with: costs. Judgment went by default with costs for plaint—s in Stewart v Bedwood, £113 a; Kaiapoi Produce and Milling Company v Schuttz, 5s 3d; and Stringer v Crowe, £2 !„ 6"d.