MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XLIII, Issue 6627, 18 December 1886, Page 1 (Supplement)

MAGISTERIAL.

CHBISTCHUBOH, Fbidat, Decbmbbb 17. [Before C. Whitefoord, 8.M., and H. J. Hall, Eeqß.] Dbvmsenksss. — Michael Sheenan and Wm. Broadbent were fined each All, Margaret McGuire £2, with the usual alternatives in case of default. Labcxnt.—Stephen Suker (17), a stable boy employed by Mr Ball, was charged with stealing some fishing gear belonging to H.'Wynn* Williams and a mane comb the property of P. Ball, valued in all at £2. The things were found in his posses- ' sion, and he now said that he had picked them up in the yard. After evidence had been heard as to his former good character, he was remanded till December 24th, a report in the meantime to be furnished by the Probation Officer. Intxbplbadkb.—ln the ease of Deamer and Doyle v Augustus Oakes, a claim of £12 19b 6d, Mrs Oakes claimed the goods seized by the execution creditor, producing a bill of sale by which, in consideration of her payment to her husband of £133, the goods had passed to her, that being nearly five months before the distress warrant was issued. Mr Izard appeared for the execution creditor, Mr Weston for Mrs Oakes, who proved that in May, 1885, she won .£133 in a race sweepstakes promoted by. Hobbs and Goodwin, and having received the money immediately bought with it her household furniture from her husband. It was admitted that plaintiffs were then pressing for money, that out of the £133 Oakes only paid a part ot the account, and that the bill of sale was made to protect the furniture against creditors. ' Nothing passed then between the husband and wife but a receipt for the money paid for the furniture. Later, however, the parties seemed to have doubted their position, and, on advice, made and registered, on July 3rd, 1886, the regular bill of sale (produced). Mr Izard argued that the receipt was in the nature of a bill of sale, and that while it was invalid in itself by reason of its not being registered at its making, it also invalidated the subsequent bill of sale. After hearing argument, Mr Whitefoord said that however the documents might be construed against a bankrupt, the last one was perfectly* good for Mm Oakes' claim. He ordered the bailiff to withdraw, and gave costs against the execution creditor. Cm* Cask*.—Woolston Town Board v Phillips, claim £2 Is 6i for rates. The defendant resisted the claim, alleging that he had ceased to occupy the property assessed; and had given the Board proper notice thereof. Judgment was for the defendant. Judgment for plaintiffs by default with costs in Snell v Bountree, £2 ; Carroll v Cooper, £7 133$ Mason, Strnthers and Co. v Vause, £31 16a; Le Masurier v Stewart, £Q 10a; Davis v Denoh, £1 j McDougel v Bliss, £6 7s Id; and Weston v Parker, £1 143. Davis V Smart, Crompton v Smart and Gundry, Hooper and Henderson v Smart, and Phillips v Beeoe were adjourned till December 24th.