KAIAPOI.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 9985, 15 March 1898, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

Monday, Maboh 14. (Before C. Hansen and J. L. Wilson, Esqrs.*

J.P.'s.)

Borough By-laws.—W. Murphy and W. Walsh, for driving vehicles after sunset without lights, were each fined ls and costs; A. Pearce, junr., M.. K. Templeton and F. Clark, for riding unlighted bicycles through the streets, were each fined ls and costs.

Cattle at Large.—H. Gallagher, for allowing nine head of cattle to be herded in the road near Perrin's, was fined 5s and costs. A second case for allowing a horse to stray, was withdrawn. Alleged Assault.—Sarah A. Cook was charged wibh assaulting W. Murphy ab Eyreton. Mr Papprill for complainant. The disagreement arose over cattle trespassing through an insufficient boundary fence, and the defendant, on evidence corroborated by a witness, threw atones, which hit the plaintiff; at the same time using, strong language. Fined 10s and costs. Civil Cases.-—B. A. Knight v Jimmy Kildare (a Maori), £4 5s lOd. Defendant admitted the debt, but pleaded his name was Isaiah. The Bench gave judgment against Isaiah James Kildare for the amount and costs. Nalder and Papprill v H. Martini Piki, £15 12s 6d, for legal costs in connection with an assault by defendant on his wife, a bill of sale bo a Woodend resident, a bond in whioh the Government estreated the sureties and collection of bills due by a West Coast man.' Evidence of the parties was heard at some length. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount and costs.

(Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M;)

A Reserved Judgment.—ln the case of W. Eckersley (Mr Stringer) v Bank of New Zealand (Mr Fisher), £20 14s, the Magistrate held that under the Magistrate's Court Act he had jurisdiction in the case. He held that defendant accepted an assignment of the lease in dispute, and was liable for its covenants, and tbab ib was only sought to disclaim it when the solicitors poinbed out it involved liabilities. He held that the agents of the Bank at Kaiapoi had an implied authority to do any act which came within the scope of the duties of the'principal authorities, and that taking securities came within this scope, though it might be held it Was outside the general scope of the Bank to accept a security involving a contingent liability. The assignment of the lease by plaintiff was the result of arrangement between him and the inspector, and in one of the agent's letters it was stated he ■" had arranged with May to take the lease off the Bank's hands for £50, payable in twelve months, without interest; the transfer was preparing, and would be forwarded for execution." Also that rents were being charged to plaintiff's account. The plaintiff's account at that time %vas not an operative one, and only kept in the Bank's books as a matter of convenience. The Bank's disclaimer had no direct bearing on the issue, and it was not proved that plaintiff, even at the solicitation of the Bank, ever assigned the lease to May. On the other hand, the Bank, from July, 1885, to September, 1887, exercised absolute control; the agent paid the rates, and his name was on the rate roll as occupier. Judgment for the plaintiff £20 14s, with costs.