CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10484, 24 October 1899, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Monday, October 23. (Before W. H. Hargreaves and W. H. Cooper, Esqs., J.PV) Drvskesxess.— One male first offender, for having been found drunk on the railwaystation platform on Saturday, was convicted and discharged. Susan Malcolm, for having been found drunk in Hawthorn road, was fined 10s, or in default to be imprisoned for 48 hours. Alleged Receiving of Stoles Moxet.— William Conlan, a boy, was charged with having, on October 17th, received the sum of £5 from Leonard "Murphy, well knowing the same, to have been dishonestly obtained. Sub-Inspector O'Brien appeared for the police, and Mr Donnelly for the accused. On the application of the Sub-Inspector, the case was remanded till the next day. Bail was allowed in one surety of £10. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil Cases.—ln the case F. C. Raphael (Mr Raphael) v V. Baird, £55 6s 6d, judgment , went for the plaintiff 'by default with costs. C. H. Poore and D. Weir v the Sydenham Borough Council, claim £81 14s 7d. Mr Andrews, who appeared for the plaintiffs, said the. case -had been adjourned for its removal to the Supreme Court. ~As far as he was aware that had not beea done. The case was placed at the bottom of the list for the defendants' other counsel to appear. When again called there was no appearance of the defendants. Mr Andrews applied for judgment, which waa entered up accordingly. C. Pannell v R. T. Leatham, claim £4 15s on a judgment summons. Mr Francis appeared for the judgment creditor. The judgment debtor, who did not appear, was ' ordered to payt forthwith or in default fourteen days' imprisonment. A. E. Bing v C. G. Fryer, claim £55 3s 6d on two promissory notes. Mr Wilding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper for the defendant. The claim was for the value of two promissory notes made by J. F. Walker in. favour of W. E. Rose, he and Walker being in partnership. They were endorsed by Rose, by Jane Rose and by the i defendant, C. G. Fryer. They were handed • to one Hopkins, from whom they were ob- j tamed upon the payment of £55 by Walker, j who received tho money from plaintiff. For ! the plaintiff it was held that the debt was i purchased by him, and that Walker was j merely his agent in the purchase. The de- j fence set up was that the money was lent ■ to Walker, and the validity of the notes was j also questioned. Having heard the evidence, I which disclosed some complicated transactions, his Worship reserved judgment.