MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8481, 12 May 1893, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, May 11. (Before H. J. Hall, Esq. and Captain Dcighton, J.P.'s.) Drunkenness. —John Toon, who had not been before the Court for some time, was fined ss. Daniel Griffiths, for whom Mr Donnelly appeared, who had been remanded for medical treatment, was fined 10e, and ordered to pay expenses, amounting to 20e. Larceny.—Maria Harper, who had been remanded on a charge of larceny, wan further charged with stealing a night dress, value 10a 9d, and one chemise, value 4s, the property of Matilda Thomas. She pleaded guilty. Sorgcant-Mujor Mason said that inquiries had been made regarding the accused, and it was found that she had been convicted of larceny at Rangiora and fined. The accused said she was able to pay for the articles. She had nothing further to urge beyond what she had said on a previous day, that she suffered from her head, otherwise she would not have taken the thiugs. The Bench said they would take a lenient view of the case, and sentenced the accused to a fortnight , * imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases.— Cloudsley v H. Campbell, claim £61 8s 6d on judgment summons; Mr Stringer for the creditor, Mr C&ssidy for the debtor. This case, which had boen gone into at some length on a previous eittiug, was continued. Evidence was taken as to the debtor's position in the firm of Cassidy, Young and Co., and a further adjournment was made till July 13th for the production of accqunts after balancing-day. Klingen* stein v Borland, claim £2 on judgment summons; the debtor did not appear, and he was ordered to pay forthwith or be impri« soned for one week. Barrett v Mooar, claim £3 5s for rent; judgment was for plaintiff with costs. Burton v Dacombe, claim £1 lls 6d; Mr Cassidy appeared for defendant and plaintiff was non-suited. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with costs in Walters v Bennett £1 2s Bd, and Guthrie and Thomas v Henderson £2 7s 6d. In Kinloy v Musson, claim £42 17* 2d, and samo v same £100, judgments were for plaintiff without opposition. Roece and Son v Wickes, Handfoy v New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Association, and Bruges v Robs were adjourned till May 18th, Sydenham Borough Council v Spring till May 25th.