MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7236, 16 February 1889, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

Friday, February 15. (Before C. Whitefoord, R.M.. and B. Westenra, J.P., Esqs.J Alleged Larceny. — John Black charged with stealing a watch and chain, valued at £5, the property of Edwin Lasher, on October 25th, came up on bail, and the prosecutor being still absent, the accused was again remanded till February 22nd, his former bail being enlarged. By-Laws.—E. Fowler and W. J. Britton were each fined 5s for riding bicycles on footpaths.— J. Kennedy, for allowing cattle to wander, was fined ss. Prohibition Orders.—ln the case of There. Freeman, on the application of his wife, publicans and others in Christchorch and suburbs were prohibited from supplying him with intoxicating liquor for the period of one year.—A similar application by Margaret Evans, as to her husband Robert Evans, was refused, there being no evidence that the defendant was addicted to excessive drinking. Assaulting a Bailiff. — Joseph Beaaley, fish dealer, and his wife Ann, were chanred with having assaulted Robert McLellan. Mr Bruges appeared to prosecute, Mr Austin for the defence. It appeared that the accused, being in arrears of rent to two landlords, removed clandestinely from their premises. They issued warrants of distress, which were given to the prosecutor to execute and on February 22nd he went to the house of accused, in Colombo road. The door was opened to him, he stepped in and was proceeding to read the warrant when the male defendant struck him in the face, and, with the help of his wife, pushed him out. Prosecutor then got a policeman, and with another bailiff and a carrier vent again to the house. The doors were locked, and, not being able to effect an entrance otherwise, he pushed in the front door, whereupon Beasley struck him on the head with a thick stick, tnd Mrs Beasley also struck him on the head with a poker. Together they inflicted several severe scalp wounds. The policeman then interfered, and held Beasley. Mrs Beasley meanwhile seized the other bailiff by the whiskers, and her son, about twelve years old, attempted to bite him on the leg. Eventually the goods were removed from the house, and prosecutor was taken to the hospital, where his wounds were dressed. He lost a lot of blood, and was laid up for over a week. The defence was that prosecutor and the other bailiff attempted to enter the house without saying who they were, and did not at any time produce their warrant. The evidence, however, was all the other way, and the male defendant was sentenced to be imprisoned for twenty-one days with hard labor. The woman was discharged. Civii. Cases. —Jameson and Anderson t Henderson, claim £100. Mr Martin for plaintiffs, Mr Stringer for defendant. Plaintiffs, commission agents of Cbristchurch, had been instructed by defendant to purchase and forward a quantity of oats and potatoes to him at Hokitika. Some delays took-place, and before the produce was purchased the market advanced greatly. Defendant repudiated the contract, alleging that the potatoes were unmarketable, and that by delay in purchasing the oats defendant had lost his market. Defendant's evidence had been taken in Hokitika. The charge for potatoes was disallowed, and judgment was given for plaintiffs for £92 17s with costs. Culliford v Delamain, claim £66 16s 4d, as balance due for meat supplied. Mr Spackman for plaintiff, Mr Russell for defendant. Mr Kussell objected that the amount was only part of a sum beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, viz., £109654 d, and that the plaintiff sought to bring it within the jurisdiction by allowing credits relating wholly to other accounts. This was proved and plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. Stonyer v Macguire, claim £13 10s 4d, as commission for the procuration of a loan. Mr Leatbam for the plaintiff; Mr Gresson for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that defendant instructed him to raise a loan of £250 on a house then going up. Plaintiff found a person who agreed to lend the money, provided that the house were properly finished, and what was required was specified in writing. To this defendant consented, but had not completed the house, and not having done so, the lender therefore declined to advance the money, and plaintiff was thus debarred from claiming his commission, for which he now sued. The defence was that all had been done that was stipulated, whereas the £250 had not been paid, the commission charged, £6 ss, therefore, had not been earned. As to the balance, charges for drawing the mortgage, defendant had paid the amount of £1 5s into Court. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. Crooke v Hancock, chum £4 18s for wages. Mr Caygill for plaintiff. Judgment was for plaintiff with costs. Klingensteln v Pyne i and Co., claim £55. Mr Byrne for the plaintiff, Mr Gresson for the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that in December he purchased from a Mr Bergh a waggonette for £22, and a sale note with that amount in it passed. The transaction, however, was in the nature of a loan, for which the waggonette was held by Klingenstein as collateral security, the arrangement being that Klingenstein should cause it to be sold, and whatever it fetched beyond the £22 was to be handed to Bergh. 'Klingenstein took the vehicle at once to the rooms of defendants, who are auctioneers, and instructed them to sell it by private treaty for not less than £53. It remained unsold till January, when Klingenstein learned that one Mr Taylor had claimed it under bill of sale. Klingenstein went to defendants and told them the circumstances, and they agreed to hold the vehicle against Taylor until a date named, when it was to be sold by auction. Before that day, however, Klingenstein heard that it was intended to remove it, and he at once took a horse with him to defendant's place to take it away. When he got there he found that Taylor had got it away. Defendants, in answer to enquiries said that it had been removed by force. Plaintiff now sued for £50 as the value of the waggonette, and £5 for its detention. The defence was that the vehicle had not been taken charge of by the defendants as auctioneers —it was never entered for only taken in to oblige Klingenstein, without any charge for storage. That defendant's were merely voluntary bailees, and as such had not shown any carelessness of the plaintiff's interest, but, on the contrary, had endeavored to prevent the removal of cbe waggonette. After protracted examination of witnesses, and argument by counsel, judgment was held over. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with costs in Stening v Francis, £3 8s 6d; Sorensen v W. and E. Sauaders, £10 Iβ 8d ; Brady and Co. v. Vivian, £7 5s Id; Reid t Christie, £3 8s; and Bradv and Cα v Scott, 18s Id. Smith v Fowler was adjourned till February 20th, Finlay v Clinton till February 22nd.

A news agency says that a ring has been formed In connection with the pottery industry in general and the manufacturers of china in particular, which cannot fail to have an important effect on the North Staffordshire trade.