MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10635, 20 April 1900, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thuksday, April 19. (Before G. Tombs and J. M. Thompson, Esqs., J.P.'s.) Drunk knnessj.—A first offender, charged with being drunk in Cashel street, on the 18th, was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Vagrancy. — Anthony Ferrick was charged with having insurficient visible lawful means of support at Christchurch on the 19th. The accused had been found sleeping on a doormat in a house in Cashel street. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Affiliation - .—John Smith was charged witli failing to provide for the future maintenance of his illegitimate female child. Mr Wright appeared for the complainant, and asked for an adjournment for a week. The accused was remanded till Tuesday next. Bail was allowed, accused in £50 and two sureties in £25 each. Alleoed Brkakino and Entering.— Leonard Willis, on remand, was charged with breaking and; entering two houses, one in Christchurch, aud one in St. Albans, and with stealing jewellery to the value of £5. Hub-Inspector O'Brien stated that he did not intend to go on with the case, as the evidence was not at all satisfactory. Tli*s offence had been committed shortly after the boy had absconded from Burnham. lire boy had practically admitted the offence, and had offered to conduct a constable to the place where it was alleged he had concealed the goods. The place was examined, but the articles were not found. The boy afterwards stated that he admitted the offence, as he would prefer to go to gaol rather than remain at the school. The charges were accordingly withdrawn, and the boy was ordered to be sent back to Burnham. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil Cases.—ln cases the defendants did not appear, and judgment went for the plaintiffs with costs: r—Henry ©erry and Co. (Mr Flesher) v W. H. Wilton, £3 0s 9d; same v F. Butcher, £4 0s 6d; same v Duffy Bros., £5 lis 6d; same v E. Wills, £10 8s ,* same v G. E. Collis and Co., £7 15s; Strange and Co. (Mr Flesher) vW. Williams, £2.0s lOd; same v M. Starkev, £5 4s Id; J. Craig (Mr Malley) v A. Mills, £8 2s 6d; W. Walker v J. W. S. Trelawney. £7 8s 2d; T. Kincaid i v G. S. Kipper. £17 3s; same v J. Swanson. £1 17s; C. ti. Wilson (Mr Smithson) v Ken, Lewis, 16s; Bowron Bros, v A. Furness, £17. K. McDermott v R. Hannr.li, claim £3 4s 9d on a judgment summons. Defendant was ordered to pay 10s on the 21st inst., and the balance at 10s a week, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. A. Campbell v J. B. Gredbatch, claim £9 10s on a judgment summons. Mr Wright appeared for the judgment creditor. No order was made. J. Richardson v G. W. Buitows, John Moir, and Allen and Roxburgh, claim £1 lis. wages, etc. Mr Beat tie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Bruges appeared for the defendants Allen and Roxburgh. The statement set out that the defendant Burrows had two houses built at Sumner. H-e let the contract to Allen and Roxburgh, who sub-let the painting to one Moir, and Mofr employed the plaintiff Richardson, who now sought, under the Contractors' and Workmen's Lien Act, to recover from the defendants. Mr Bruges submitted that his clients had not received proper notice. That served on them was not signed. A copy of the original notice served on the defendant Burrows was produced and proved to have been signed. Mr Bruges also contended that the notice should have contained full particulars of claim. Mr Beattie held that under Section 10 of the Act a signature was not necessary. His Worship ultimately decided that the case should proceed. After hearing the evidence, which was of a complicated character, his Worship said that he must give judgment according to it. The plaintiff had no claim on the parties under the Act. What was due to him appeared to be three guineas, which the defendant Roxburgh was willing to hand over. He had better take that and settle what dispute he had with Moir in a manner outside the Act. Judgment for defendants with costs.