MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8806, 29 May 1894, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Mos-day, May 28.

(Before J. M. BAtham and W. Williams, Eeqs., J.P/a.) Larcbnt pkom a Dweixtxg. —Sarah Barnett, aged 15, was charged with the larceny of a quantity of ladies' and children's wearing apparel, &c, of a total value oi £2 13s 6d, from the dwelling of Edward Townshend at West Melton, on or about the 2?th instant. She pleaded "Guilty." SergeantMajor Mason said the girl resided with her father about a quarter of a mile from the house of the prosecutor. She was left by herself a good deal and was somewhat wanting in intelligence. She knew where the key of the prosecutor's house was kept, and during the absence of the inmates she entered the house. She took away a quantity of goods and destroyed the greater portion j the total amount taken or destroyed amounting to about £10. Mrs Townshend deposed to finding several things that had been stolen in the house of the accused's father. Every drawer and box in witness's house had been ransacked. The Bench decided to place the accused on probation for six months, on the understanding that her father looked after her better than he bad done. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil Cases. —Stewart v Gribbin. In this case argument was heard on the judgment given on May 22nd. The defendant had paid an amount into Court, and had given notice of that payment. On the day for the hearing both parties came up and the plaintiff said he accepted the amount paid in. Mr Cresswe)l, then, en behalf of the defendant claimed co3ts on the ground that under sub-section 1 of section 110 of the Magistrates' Court Act, 1895, the plaintiff was bound to signify to the defendant that he accepted the sum which had been paid in, and this had not been done, so that defendant had been put to unnecessary expense in appearing to defend the case. The Magistrate, on this statement (which was not contradicted) allowed the defendant his costs. Mr Ritchie, for the plaintiff, afterwards applied to have the judgment reconsidered, stating that his client had, by misunderstanding, allowed it to go without opposition. Mr Ritchie now proved that plaintiff had given defendant a verbal notice of his acceptance, and the circumstances were such that the Magistrate said, in the absence of rules bearing on the point, he would hold that sufficient notice had been given. The question of whether the notice of acceptance should be in writing or not might be setoled after the issue of rules of procedure tinder the new Act. The judgment was consequently varied by the allowance of costs to,the defendant being struck out. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with costs in Seed and Agricultural Company v Grosherslri, 13s 10d; Same v Rogers, £1 17s 7d; Bruges v Nankivell, £18 63 6d ; Williatnaou v Smith (costs), 15s 6d; -Wreaks v Coulter), £1 3s lid ; Massey v JRilev, £3 14s 9d; Trent y Horwell, £3 12s3d; and Cook v O'Leary, £8 12s 3d. Seed and Agricultural Company v Ricketts was adjourned till May 31st.