MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2274, 16 July 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH,

Fbiday, 15. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M.] Civil Oases. —Garrick and Oowlishaw v Proudfoot and Mackay, £sl Is, claim for professional services. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Button for defendants. Mr Garrick deposed that in July, 1880, ho became aware that there was a project on foot by which, at the motion of the Christchurch City Council and the Sydenham Borough Council, defendants were to carry cut works for a water supply in those places. He had been consulted on matters concerning it in the first place by Mr James Reston, representing defendants, and afterwards met members of a water supply committee of the City Council, Messrs Oherrill and Vincent, and Mr Charters, and with him Mr Draper, for the Sydenham Borough Council. After some preliminary meetings Mr JProudfoct himself consulted witness, and the scheme was fully discussed. Proudfoot stated that his firm were prepared to construct works to cost, say £150,000, and the Councils proposed to levy a rate, if they had the power, to pay the firm a sum per annum as interest, &0., on the outlay. Proudfoot wanted that power to be ensured, as also all the necessary powers to open the ground in streets for the laying and maintenance of mains, &c. "Witness at this interview told Mr Proudfoot that the powers required were not possessed by the Councils, and that the only way to get over the difficulty would be by getting an empowering Act passed by Parliament, then sitting. Proudfoot then said that should be done. Witness expressed doubts whether at that late period of the session a Bill could be got through, but Proudfoot told him to go on with it; his firm would log roll it through. Proudfoot at the same time handed witness as a model the Dunedin Waterworks Company (Limited) Bill, 1860. Witness then wished to know who was to pay the expenses, and Proudfoot replied that his firm would pay them. The Bill was accordingly drafted and sent to defendants, and the charge for doing that, together with consultation, fees, &0., constituted the present claim, which was much less than would have been made if the Bill had been taken through Parliament. It was dropped, however, and in due time witness sent in the account. No notice was taken of that, and the present action was the result. The evidence of Mr Proudfoot, taken by commission elsewhere, had been read before Mr Garrick was examined. It was a denial of his having given plaintiffs instructions to draw the bill. James Reston deposed that ho was concerned with Messrs Proudfoot in the waterworks scheme as detailed above. He had told last witness that defendants would pay the expenses of the bill, and had heard Mr Proudfoot give plaintiff the instructions, which the latter mentioned in his evidence. This was all the evidence. Judgment was for plaintiffs with costs.— Judgment was for plaintiffs in Ritchie v Donohue, £2; Doyle v Mullins, £l6 10s; and Button v Byrne, £6 12s. Judgment was for defendant in Evanson v Taylor, a claim for £1 5s wages. ‘.ln Kerr v Lang plaintiff was nonsuited. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default in Henshaw v Dunn, £1; Wilson v Same, £5 9s 9d ; Radcliffe v Same, £1 9s ; Green v Lamb, £1 10s 2d; Langdown and Co. v Barrett, £1 3s lOd ; Hale and Co. v Standage, £1 4s; Haddril v Kerr, £l2; Patten v Brown, £7 3s 2d ; Pitt v Dunn, £l6 7s 6i ; Treleaven v Dovery, £8 18s 9d ; Jones v Osborne, £2 14a 3d j Dixon v Hammil. £5 10s ; H. Matson and Co. v Same, £3 18s 63.

SATtTBDAY, JtTLY 16. (Before J. Ollirier and E. Westecra, Esq., J.P.’s] Drunkenness. —For first offences two men were fined each ss. Ellen Boyle, in addition to drunkenness, was charged with throwing a stone through the window of Messrs Heymanson, Low and Co.’s boot factory. The latter charge was not proved, and she was fined 10j and Is cab hire. Laecbniks. —William John Simmons was brought up on warrant charged with having stolen a pair of boots from _O. Klingeostein. Accused had only just been released from prison, whero he had been serving a term for another offence. Previous to that he had gone to Kltngenstein’s, and had, in charity, been allowed to stay a few days. On the second day he decamped with a pair of the landlord’s boots, nearly new, leaving his own, a very bad pair, in their place. He pleaded guilty, and was sent to gaol for one month. Thomas Johr.son pleaded guilty to a till robbery at Allen’s Q-olden Age Hotel. Yesterday afternoon ho went into the hotel, called for a drink, and when Mr Allen, who served him, had his back turned, ho leaned over the counter and took some silver from a Mr Allen caught him with two shillings in his hand. He was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment. J