CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9585, 27 November 1896, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

TmrRSDAY, Novbmbxr 26. (Before T. Gapes, G. S- Ross, and E. H. Ricketts, Ksqs., J.P.'s.)

Aixbqsd Larckty. —Jos. Henry Thomas | was charged with having on 26th November stolen four pieces of scantling, value Sβ, the property of some person or persons unknown. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, who pleaded not gailty. Detective Henderson asked for a remand, as the accused was only arrested between 2 and 3 a.in. that day and the police were not prepared just then to go on with the case. The case was remanded until Monday, bail being allowed accused in hie own recognisances of £25 and one surety of £25. Margaret Bean, alias Craig, was chargedwith having, on 25th November, stolen a loaf of bread, value 3d, the property of Minnie Bryan. Accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecutrix stated that accused hawked goods. On Wednesday she saw the accused coming to her house, and she planted herself to watch. Accused went on to the verandah, knocked at the door, and no one answered. She then picked up the loaf of bread off the verandah and was going away with it when theprosecntrixchallengedherandtooktheloaf from her basket. Accused persisted that she exchanged two pairs of bootlaeee with a boy on the Lincoln road for a loaf, and Detective Benjamin stated that she also told him she purchased it from a man. The Bench sentenced the accused to two months' imprisonment.

(Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil Casks.—Thompson v Higgs,-claim £91 12s, Mr Stringer for the plaintiff, Mr Nalder for the defendant. Mr Stringer said this was a case in which the holder of a mortgage had realised on the security, and the proceeds being short of the amount advanced, now sued for the balance and interest due. He called John Joyce, solicitor, who stated that in 1890 he acted in arranging a loan of £110 on a house and land in Lyttelton from one Beecroft to the defendant, who had mortgaged land adjoining to Messre Gould and Beaumont. Part of the loan was paid to them in reduction of their mortgage, the defendant received £43 odd in cash, and £12 7s 6d was deducted for fees paid on deeds and costs. The defendant asked him to raise the money to help pay off Gould and Co.'s mortgage. In 1892 Beecroft, bsing dissatisfied with nonreceipt of interest, transferred his interest to the plaintiff's father, since deceased, and of whose estate the plaintiff was administrator. At the same time one Schenkel agreed to buy the property on such terras that at the end of three years, the currency of the loan, he would have paid enough to discharge the mortgage. Defendant concurred and signed all the papers necessary in the transaction and they were now produced. Schenkel had failed to carry out hia agreement, the defendant had not paid the interest falling due and the plaintiff had now exercised his right. Wm. T. Thompson, the plaintiff, gave formal evidence as to deeds, &c. For the defence Jas. Higgs, butcher, swore that in the transaction he believed he was selling right out for £100 to Mr Joyce, who had led him to believe that this was the case. He had certainly signed the documents produced, but they had not been read over to him; he knew nothing of Beecroft, or Thompson, or Schenkel, or of his liability until just before Thompson sold. Mr Joyce never rendered him an account of what became of the proceeds from the property. He now saw his receipt for £110 made up of cash paid to Gould and Co., cash paid to himself, and costs. He never executed a second mortgage over property, including that which formed the subject of this action. He now saw such a document. He borrowed £150 by means of it. Mr Ritchie had conducted that business; the deed was not read over to him, the property should not have been included in it. Wm. Beecroft deposed that he had lent £110 to Higgs through Mr Joyce. He transferred the mortgage to Thompson. Hβ produced a receipt given by Joyce and Salter for £110 lent to Higgs. R. Schenkel stated that he had signed without hearing it read an agreement to pay 10s for three years for the purchase of the property, at the end of that time it was to become the property of his mother-in-law, who, with himself, resided there. He believed he was dealing solely with Mr Joyce. Mr Beetham, after some remarks on the improbable nature of the evidence for the defence, which he said was quite at variance with the proved facts, gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with £8 16s coats. Sinclair v Cross was adjourned till December 10th. In Hoare v Fowler, claim £3 7s, on judgment summons, the debtor did not appear, and was ordered to pay forthwith, or in default to be imprisoned for one week.