CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7360, 12 July 1889, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

XHTHRSDAY, JCT.T 11.

V**'*^^™"''*-*

DBr-Sa-E-xBSS.-- A first offender was Scbamanski. and Joseph gSkte were chargedl with trespassing in imrsuit of game on the run of Mr U T. Santo" New Brighton on June 17th. Mr Berwick appeared for the prosecutor. The evidence forthe prosecution was that the t"ree accused were on the run, and that «£hamaiski was seen to shoot a rabbit. Gorskle admitted denied firing them, said he did not have agun that day Several witnesses were called for the defence The information against Gorskie was dismissed. A heavy penalty was not pressed for, and tbe other two accused were fined la each and costs. Alleged Failing to Pkovide.-R. I). Petrie was charged with failing to contribute to the support of his ille ? itimate child. He was remanded to the loth mst. to Bangiora.

(Before B. Beetham, Esq., R.M.)

Crvn. Cases.—Pepperell v Paterson, claim £3-. iir Martin for plaintiff, ixr Stringer for the defendant. On June 2nd plaintiff's manager let on hire, to one Johnson a carrier of Leeston, a van at a weekly hiring of 7s. Shortly afterwards Johnson absconded, and the van was found at Beauchamp's auction yard, where it had been sold on June 18th to defendant. Plaintiff claimed £33 as the value of the vehicle, and £2 for its detentention. The defence was that though defendant had bid for the van at auction, and it had been knocked down to him, he immediately repudiated the purchase, because plaintiff's agent, who was present, warned him that the van belonged to" aha Pepperell. Defendant never bad possession of the van. He was not defending the action. Counsel for the defence had been retained by D. Stranaghan, who had caused the van to be placed in the yard. There was a running account between Mr Beauchamp and witness; though the sale was for cash, he would not, had the purchase been completed, be required to pay cash down. Evidence was led showing that Stranaghan had bought a van from Johnson, and, on his evasion, had seized the vehicle herein named. Several witnesses gave cross evidence as to the identity of the van. A. Beauchamp, auctioneer, deposed that Stranaghan's bailiff, a man named Jjoardman, put the van in for tale. It had been sold to defendant for £15, and charged to him. Defendant repudiated the purchase, and witness considered it was no sale. But the charge aull remained on his books, and witness had paid Stranaghan the £15 by account sales. His Worship found that the van belonged to Mrs Pepperell, but adjourned tbe case till July 18th to consider who was answerable for its detention. Pepperell v | Wilson, claim £12, the value of a mare. Mr Martin for plaintiff, Mr Bruges for defeAant. The circumstances in this case were the same as in that reported above, except that it was proved that the defendant was not the J. Wilson to whom tbe mare had been knocked down, and lodgment was for defendant, with costs liddle v Swift, claim £22 Is (3d. Mr Kippenberger for plaintiff, Mr Bruges for the defendant. This was a re-hearing of a claim for damages for illegal distraint and for expenses paid. At the first hearing, which was fully reported, a judgment was siren for plaintiff for £12 Is 6d, with costs M 13s. This judgment was now conflrmed, with additional costs £3 19s 6d. Jones v Ridley, claim £7 3s on jadgment summons. Defendant did not appear, and for past default was ordered to be imprisoned for three weeks. Judgments went for plaintiffs without dispute in Frankish v Steele, £31 12s 6d, and Irving v Darling, £117s 6d. Judgments by default, with costs, were gives for plaintiff's in Newby v Brook, £18 9s 4d; Irving v Bissett. £3 3s; same v Tippetts, £2 2s; same v Pyle. £1 fe; same v Gunn, £3 17s; Phillips v Elder, £3 17s 6d; Christchurch Finance Company v Gunn, £7 Is 6d, and Staunton v Smith, 15s. Frankish v King and Irving verocker were adjourned till July 18th, Irving v Dudley till July 25th.