MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2637, 19 September 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTOHUBOff. Tuesday, Sbptbubbb 19. [Before J. Ollivier, Esq., B.M.J

IVagbanoy. —Clara Dodsworth was oharged with having no lawful means of support. The prisoner, who had only been released from i prison on Monday, was found under a fence in Manchester street, intoxicated, at one o'olock thia morning. Bhe was aentenoed to one month's imprisonment, with hard labor. Bowdibs —Peter Bugsted, Jas. Thompson, and John Brown, three young men, were charged with behaving in a manner calculated to provoke a breaoh of the poaoe. They had passed along the Bast town belt long after midnight the previous night; they were shouting "fire" at the top of their voices, and beating the fenoes as they went along. The inhabitants in that part of the town were thoroughly alarmed, and many of them turned out to look for a fire. The prisoners now said that ;they were only just in from I the country, and had not behaved so badly as they were said to have done. As there was nothing on the record against them they were fined in the sum of £8 eaoh, in default of payment to be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for four days. PaoTBOTiOH Obdbb. —An order was made protecting the earnings of Harriet Hart against her husband, J. H. Hart, who had left her without maintenance lor six years. Civil Oases.—Soott Bros, v Allen, claim £4 63 9J, for blacksmith's work ; the case had been adjourned from a previous sitting for the production of evidence ; Mr Joycs appeared for plaintiff ; judgment for plaintiff with costs. Wilson v Welsh, claim £1 10f, being the value of a saddle left for repairs ; Mr Joyce for defendant} judgment for defendant with oasts. Burson v Boardman, claim £3 5s 2d, for provisions supplied to a camp on guarantee of defendant; judgment for plaintiff for amount olaimed and oosts. Wilson v Stead, £l2 8s 9d, being a claim for remission, as_ per contract, of commission charged on certain dealings in advanoes on grain; Mr Martin appeared for plait I ff ;|defendant pleaded that the oontraot named had baen broken by plaintiff, and that the agreement to remit commission was thus voided; a witness called by plaintiff corroborated defendant's statement, and judgment was for defendant with oosts. Black v Fowler, olaim £2 9a 3d, beiog the prioe of a ' wedding dress supplied to his sister-in-law ; ' defendant pleaded that he had not authorised his sister-in-law to buy the dress, but, evi- ' denoe being forthcoming that defendant's wife [ had done so, judgment was for plaintiff with '■ oosts. Hastens v Gunn, £9 S>, for i rent; judgment for plaintiff with costs. (Jollier v Aikin, olaim £4 13a, for refresh- 1 ments and bottled whiskey supplied. As to 1 the drinks, defendant pleaded the Tippling I Act, and the charge for them was struck out, 1 and judgment was given £1 13s, charge for i six bottles, of whiskey. Judgments went by ' default for plaintiffs in Porter v Johnston,' i £5 ; Springfield Goal Company v Smith, £l3 < 2s 3d ; Taylor and Oakley v Brunt, £2 12s | ] Dale and Co. v Williamson, £9 10j ; Law- I renoe v Nicholson, £1; Dorney v Oaloroft, 7s; and Allen v Orchard, £2; Hobday and Co. v Bobinson was adjourned till September 26th. KAIABOI. Monday, Skptbmbbb 18. i [Before O. Whitefoord and J. O. Porter, ] Esqs., B.M.'fl, J. Hurse and C. '. Smith, Bsqs.J Illeqai/ly on Pbemibbs. —Edwin Smith and Bichard Batch were charged with being ' illegally on the premises of 0. Oram on Saturday night, and with provoking a breaoh ; of ;the peace. Sergeant MoDonald and i Constable Leahy stated that hearing words < between accused and one J. Gurney, they followed them to Mr Oram's stables, where i Gurney slept, and ar ived in time to stop a i fight and arrest accused. J. Gurney stated that Smith and himself were the worse for ■ drink on Saturday night, and the latter challenged him to fight in Burnip's dancing | room, and Smith and Baloh followed him to his room above Mr Oram'* stable, breaking i in the door, and attempted to drag him out. By aooused—Had been annoying Smith. Might have offered to fight, and might have used strong language, B. Boss stated that Smith called on Gurney in the dance room i to fight, and they went outside, but subsequently the latter went home. Smith and Balch i broke into the room and wanted Gurney to ; fight. Smith oaught hold of his leg and arm. j Balch threatened to chuck witness out just as the polioe arrived. He heard Gurney in the , ball-room call Smith a cad. In defence Smith admitted following up Gurney beoause he had called him a oad, and had refused to fight. He broke into his room and dragged him out of bed. Balch said he heard Gurney and Smith having words, and went up to them. After the former went away he fol- , lowed with Smith as Smith wanted to fight Gurney for what he had said. They were pulling Gurney out when the polioe came. The Benoh retired. On returning into Court, Mr Whitefoord said for the offence of being illegally on premises the punishment was imprisonment. As they were loth to send the i young men to herd with oommon criminals, j and believed that all the parties had previously been friends, the first case would be i dismissed. For the seoond offence both were fined £5, or in default fourteen days' imprison- , I ment, and ordered to find one security of £25 to , ' keep the peace for six months. At this announcement Baloh laughed, and Mr Whitefoord ordered him into custody till the rising - of the court for contempt, when accused apologised, and the oase was withdrawn. The accused were charged with damaging a Government urinal value 255. The watohhouse keeper said the utensil was in good repair when put into the cell, and when removed the bottom had been kicked out. Baloh stated in defenoe the artiole was damaged, and on standing on it to look out it gave way. Fined Is each, and ordered to pay 12s 6d eaoh for damage, or in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. abusive LAuatrASß. —Balph Wilson was charged by Isaac Wilson, farmer, with using abusive language. Mr Joyoe for oomplainant, Mr Holmes for defendant. After hearing the proß and cons of a very disgusting matter between the parties, the Bench dismissed the case. [Before J. O. Porter, Ejq.., 8.M., and O. Smith, Mayor] Civil Casbb.—B. Moore v A. Oockburn, £3 12s 6d ; judgment for plaintiff. loaao Saunders v B. Moore, £3O; Mr Raider for plaintiff. The olaim was for recovery of two horses and dray seized by the bailiff at the suit of Moore v Keeley. Plaintiff deposed that he purchased them from Keeley on May 25th, and on June Ist rented them again to him for 25s per week. It was a bona fide sale. In reply to defendant, he said Keeley induced him to buy the chattels in order to assist him. He took posseision on May 25th, but Keeley had the use of them to June let, before the agreement to rent was drawn up. W. Keeley deposed that he had asked Saunders to buy the horses and there were no arrangements to take them back. He admitted having the drsy repaired on his own acoount in June, and buying feed for the horses. Defendant contended that the transaction was an evasion of the Chattel Securities Act, 1880, and the leasing of the stook had not been registered. Mr Hurse, on behalf of Keeley's oreditora, here addressed tho Court, and said he could show that the sale was not a bona fide one, and Keeley's evidence was not correot. He applied for an adjournment for a week. Mr Porter said, upon the evidence, he must make an order for the restitution of the property, and defendant could appeal. Mr Moore gave notice of appeal. _____^_______,_