CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7923, 24 July 1891, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Thursday, July 23. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Maintenance. —Annie Archbold charged frer husband, John Archbold, with having failed to support her and their two children. The case was proved, and he was ordered to pay i>l per week towards their support—Malcolm McKinley was charged with having failed to obey an order of the Court directing him to pay £2 per week for the support of his family. Mrs McKinley stated that she had received about J545 from her husband in the last twelve months, but he was now in arrear i>ss 12s; he had been drinking heavily lately. The defendant pleaded that since the order was made he had fallen out of regular employment, and he applied, for a reduction of the order. The order was varied to £1 5a per week. Mr Beetham said defendant's drinking habits had brought on all the trouble, Only that the wife would be deprived of the chance of getting something out of him the Court would send him at once to gaol, and this would certainly happen if he neglected to keep up the reduced payments. The case of Holland v Holland, alleged wife desertion, was adjourned till July 27th, and Spence v Spence, a claim for support by a father on a son, was adjourned till July 28th. A Shipping Case.—Lonargan, McClea and Company v New Zealand Shipping Company, claim £15 16s 6d for goods alleged to have been pillaged from a case per s.s. Ruapehu, between London and plaintifiV store in Christchurch. Mr Stringer for plaintiffs, Mr Nalder for defendants. The evidence was heard on June 25th, and Mr Beetham now gave judgment as follows :—There is no evidence to satisfy mc that the goods lost from the case were abstracted during the time it was in the custody of the defendant Company. There is evidence that the case was in a broken condition when it was received from the ship into the railway truck at Lyttelton ; there the responsibility of the ship ceases. The case was taken to Christchurch railway station the next day and we have the statement that the was broken, the zinc torn and the contents exposed. The day after that the case was delivered to the defendants apparently intact. The out-tally clerk and the cas hier state that there was nothing wrong with it. An unqualified receipt for it was given Dy the plaintiffs. Three days afterwards the case on being opened, was found to be minus some of its contents. As regards the notice oi claim to defendants I am of opinion ttiat though written notice was not given witnin seven days, verbal notice of the intention to claim was given, and I should be prepaid to hold that sufficient, but I think that as the broken case was allowed to pass into the truck from the ship's side without examination by the plaintiffs, and, i u . rtner ? to leave the railway goods shed without examination—while it was permitted to He in the plaintiffs' cellar for three days before it was unpacked—it is impossible for mc to say with any de|ree of certainty that it was pillaged while in the custody of the defendant Company. There was some evidence that the Company, as an act of grace, so to speak, allowed the consignees to take delivery at the railway goods shed at Christchurch, but I think we have to deal with the contract as

set forth in the bill of lading, and, moreover, the case was apparently sound when it left the railway goods shed ; at all events, it was not examined there by plaintiffs or their agents, nor was any exception taken to the condition of the case at any time by the plaintiffs until it was opened by them after having been three days in their store. Judgment for defendants with costs. Civil Cases.—Joseph v Ferguson, claim £13 19s, for damage done by defendant's dogs worrying sheep; Mr Cresswell for plaintiff, Mr Deacon for defendant. The evidence was that the plaintiff had, at the end of June, 381 sheep running in a paddock at HalswelL two dogs were seen to be worrying among the flock, and afterwards it was found that several were dead, some missing, and a number had been badly bitten. There was no contradictory evidence, and judgment was given for the amount claimed, less JJI charged for lose of time, kc. ; costs £6 13s. In Fleshborn v Jewitt, defendant was ordered to give up possession of premises and pay rent due, £&. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in Orr and Co. v O'Malley, £1 6s 7d, and 'Adams and Kippenberger v P. Donnelly, Jβ! Is.