MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7246, 28 February 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

chbistchubch. ! Wednesday, February 27. [Before C Whitefoord. RJff., and R. Westenra, Esq.] Drunkenness.—For a first offence a man was fined 6s, or in default twenty-four hours , imprisonment. Robbing* an Orchard,—H. Gapes, D. Barnside, H. Galbraitb, C. Neal, A. Clements, G. Clements, A. Keith, John Bryant and T. Bryant, boys, of whom only two were older than five or six years, were charged with stealing apples valued at ss, the property ot H. J. Beswick, at Fendalton on February 3rd. As it appeared that the accused had all been punished by their parents, the Magistrate administered a severe reprimand, warning them that if they came up "again on a similar charge they would probably be whipped at the lock-up, and discharged them. Breaking an Insulator. — Alfred Banks, a boy whose age was not stated, but was still smaller, if possible, than the boys who had stolen the apples, was charged with having broken a telegraph wire insulator. He pleaded guilty. Constable Flewellen stated that the boy threw up a mimic parachute, and the stone attached to it struck the insulator and broke it. Inspector Pender said the accused was a very good boy. Mr Meddings, Inspector of Telegraphs, said that, as he had informed his Worship in a former case, at Kaiapoi, many thousands of insulators had been wilfully broken by boys making shots at them. Mr Whitefoord said in that the boys had deliberately fired at the insulators ; this was different; it appeared the accused had not done so. The father §i the boy was ordered to pay for the damage done —set down at 4s 6d—and cost of summons 7.°, and the accused was discharged. Miscellaneous. —Thomas Williams, for driving an express waggon in town without lights on it, was nned ss; the same defendant, for provoking a breach of the peace by quarrelling with another expressman on the South Town belt, on February 2nd, was fined 10s with 5s expenses of a witness and costs.—For allowing cattle to wander, H. Holt and T. Sheenan were each fined ss.—Chas. Hill, for riding a bicycle on a footpath in Springfield road, was itned ss.—Henry Jenkins, for herding three cows in Albemarle street, Sydenham, was fined ss, with 5s expenses of a witness and costs of Court. * Civil Casks.—Hensley v Bowron Bros., claim £25105., as commission on the purchase of 108 bales of wool. Mr McConnel for the plaintiff, Mr Byrne for the defendants. The plaintiff, a wool buyer, employed to purchase for the defendants, employed a sub-agent, who purchased the lot in question, which,, when delivered, was objected to by plaintiffs, who thereupon declined to pay the commission. The defence was that the defendant, in buying through a sub-agent, had not exercised the personal skill for which the commission was to be the remuneration, and that a loss had been or would be made on the transaction. The Bench rnled, on the evidence, that defendants had adopted the act of plaintiff, and gave him judgment for £24 15s, with costs. Delamain v Culliford, claim £42 103. Mr Russell for the plaintiff, Mr Spackman for defendant. The claim was for money lent, the value of a horse and cart, and for the hire of ahorse. Defendant put in a set-off of £108 6s 4d, reduced to £100, for jurisdiction, for meat supplied. The claim was not disputed. As to the set-off, plaintiff swore that, in 1882, defendant made a composition for 2s 6d in the pound with his creditors, of whom plaintiff was one in the amount of £160. The dividend was never paid. In 1885 defendant came to plaintiff and said that now he was on his feet jagain, and considering that plaintiff had not enforced the bill of sale held by him and for other kindnesses, he would supply plaintiff with meat until the original debt was worked out. Plaintiff had no objection, though he was not eager about it, and defendant did send meat till the latter end of 1888, when defendant said he thought the debt was discharged. In all that time defendant had not rendered any account nor asked to be paid for his meat. Plaintiff, ! however, bad lent him money from time to time, and had also supplied the cart : and harness, but with no idea of putting these transactions against a butchers! bill. 'In reply to this, defendant alleged that What he was paying off was the sum due as 2s 6d in the £ composition, and the value of the horse, cart, and harness, together with the cash lent. This had all been liquidated, and he now stood with a j large balance in his favor. After evidence and counsel's address, judgment was eivenfortheamountclaimedwith costs; the set-off was disallowed. Fletcher, Humphries and Co. v Mrs Berti, for goods supplied. The defendant, who is licensee of the Governor's Bay Hotel, disputed her liability, on the ground that Mr Scarlett, the brewer, who put her into the house, had ordered the goods, or had become responsible for payment for them. The evidence did not show this, and judgment was for plaintiffs for the full amount claimed, with costs. Judgments went for plaintiff by default with costs in Banks v Hogan, £1, and Bowron Bros, t McNaugbt £8 13s 4d.