CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7864, 15 May 1891, Page 6

CHRISTCHURCH.

Wednesday, May 13. (Before F. J. Kimbell and J. V. Ross, Esqrs., J.P.s)

Disorderly Behaviour.—Fred. Unwm was charged with breaking a pane of glass, valued at 7s 6d, in a room at Addington. It appeared that on Tuesday night the Salvation Army opened in a hall in Lincoln road. A number of boy 3 gathered round the door and threw decayed fruit, &c, into the crowd. One of the missiles broke a pane of glass in the door of the hall. Three witnesses spoke as to seeing the accused throwing at the same time as the other boys, but could not say that he broke the glass. The case was adjourned till 20th for the production of a witness. Thcrsday, May 14. (Before R. Westeiira, W. H. Simms, and J. G. Ruddeuk.au, Esqs., J.P.'s.) ; . Importuxixg Passengers.—Ethel Smith and Lottie Stenson were charged with being common prostitutes and importuning passengers hi Manchester street for the purposes of "prostitution. Constables O'Donohue and Cleary gave evidence. The former stated that he heard the women call a man back as he was passing aloug the street. The Bench considered the evidence insufficient, and cautioned and dismissed the accused. Elizabeth Cronin, alias McKenna, was charged in a similar way. Constable O'Donohue gave evidence as to the woman addressing a man and following him along the street. The Bench sentenced her to fourteen days' hard labor. Alleged Obscene Language.—Michael Murphy was charged with using obscene language, in Cathedral square, the previous evening. On the application of Mr Donnelly, who appeared for the accused, a remand was granted till Saturday. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. —Scott v Landergan, claim £18 0s 7d, for work done to a house. This case had been adjourned for the evidence of an expert. Judgment was now given for plaintiff for the amount claimed; Edith Matthews v Nellie Leslie. Mr bpackman for plaintiff, Mr Kippenberger for defendant. This was a claim for £100, or the return of a quantity of goods, under the following circumstances. The plaintiff is the wife of Herbert Matthews, and resided at Riccarton in a house belonging to herself. The furniture mostly belonged to her husband, but amongst the things were many articles her own property. In January the house, through Mr Hopkins, an agent, who acted for both parties, was let furnished, to defendant, who is described as a widow. Mrs Matthews selected a quantity of articles and locked them in a cupboard, intending to reserve them from use by Mrs Leslie. A bailment of the furniture not so reserved was made and signed, but the schedule containing the list of it was never attached. When Mrs Leslie took possession she insisted on the cupboard mentioned being left unlocked, and after some persuasion Mrs Matthews agreed to it. It was proposed by Mr and Mrs Matthews then to go over the inventory of all the things, but Mrs Leslie deferred it till the following Saturday, and on that day till some other time, as she was unwell. Mrs Matthews was especially anxious to have the things in the cupboard, which were nick-nacksof various description, someof them heirlooms of considerable value, but she never succeeded in inducing Mrs Leslie to go over them with her. Finally the j house was sold by the second mortgagee, and the furniture was taken under a distress issued against Mr Matthews, and Mrs Leslie refurnished the house, remaining in occupation. A bill of sale covered the furniture belonging to Mr Matthews, but the bailiffs took everything except that which Mrs Leslie claimed as her own. The goods were conveyed to an auction room in Christchurch and the holder of the bill of sale then put in I his claim, on which the goods were sent back to the house, but Mrs Leslie refused to receive them, and they were carted back to the auction room. Mrs Matthews then found most of her property missing. She applied to Mrs Leslie for their recovery. She was refused permission to look through the house for them, and then a search was made under permission of Mrs Leslie, and afterwards Mrs Matthews got back some things, but a large quantity was still missing. Mrs Leslie stated that she had not got them, and plaintiff now brought her action to recover them or their value as reduced to £100, to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. The witnesses called besides the plaintiff were Mr Matthews and the bailiffs, the latter proving that none of the goods were lost in transit. In defence, Mrs Leslie stated that she had no knowledge of what had become of the articles. There was great confusion in the removal of the furniture, and many persons, strangers, had the handling of it. She had always given every facility for search, and had not now any of them in her possession. Mr Kippenberger spoke as to acting for Mrs Leslie in the endeavor to adjust the difference. This being all the evidence the case was adjourned till May 18th, his Worship suggesting that in the meantime the parties should try and come to some arrangement. Judgment was for plaintiff in Property Tax Commissioner v Anderson for £1 5s 6d. Judgments by default for plaintiffs with costs in Talbot v Valois, £30 ; Tuck v Quick, 12s 7d ; Aulesbrook and Co. v Reid, £12 3s; Mason, Struthers, and Co., v Allaway, £11 0s 6d; Harper and Lee v Hannaford, £15 15s; Hazlehurst v Campion. £20; and Luke v Rew, £4 2s Id. Fergus v Morris was adjourned till May 21st.