RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 656, 19 February 1859, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHRISTCHURCH.

Monday, February 14. (Before W. G. Brittan, Esq., J. P.) John Goodyer; was fined ss. for drunkenness.

Wednesday, February 16.* (Before John Hall, Esq., R.M.)

John Frederick Ballard appeared to prefer a charge against John Goodyer, for indecent behaviour and drunkenness ;in the G6l3en Fleece Hotel. Prosecutor brought forward two witnesoes who proved the offences. Defendant did not appear to answer the summons. Convicted, and sentenced to pay £5 for the use of indecent language, and £2 for being drunk, together with. the costs of proceeding, and an allowance to the two witnesses.

. George Bond was summoned to answer a charge of furious riding, made by the police. P. C. Barwell deposed to having- seen defendant ride down Colombo-street at a furious rate, to the Golden Fleece. Defendant further aggravated the offence which was proved to have been committed, by refusing to give his right name when it was demanded. Convicted and fined £2.

A similar offence to the last was also proved against a man known by the name of' John,' in the employ of Mr. Slee, Butcher, of Christchurch. Defendant was convicted and fined 10s.

,/PEICE V. BISHOP. . This was an action brought to recover the sum of £6 65., alleged to be, clue for wages. Defendant paid the sum of £4 -9s. into Court previous to the' hearing of the case; he also handed in an offset of £1 17s. against the plaintiff. It appears that, plaintiff, while in the service of defendant had lost a set of trace chainsy the property of defendant;, it was for a new set of these chains that defendaut now produced an offset. The Court were of opinion that where the servant-by gross negligence, such as now appeared to have been the case, had lost any property of his master, his-master had a right to deduct the same from his servant's wages. Judgment would therefore be recorded for the amount paiii bydefendant intoCourt,and the plaintiff to pay costs, in as much as he had refused the proper amount which had been tendered to him by defendant before commencing the action. WOESPH V. BEITS. This action was brought by the plaintiff, Charles Worth, a plasterer, <to recover the sum of-£5 ss. from Joseph Betts, who follows the same trade. It appeared that defendant had agreed to do some work for plaintiff at Mr, Wormald's, in Lyttelton; and that when the wort was done,; defendant had agreed to pay: plaintiff's bill for labour, if a fair bill; the demand nowmade upon defendant, he (defendant) did not consider fair, it was. too much. The Court was cleared for consideration of the case, and being re-opened, the opinion of the bench was given that the charges made by plaintiff were more than reasonable; that on certain days mentioned in his'bill, he could not have worked the hours he had charged for, neither could the Court allow a charge made for "lodging while in Lyttelton. Plaintiff would he allowed for 54 hours, instead of the 61 he had charged defendant, with. Judgment was then given for plaintiff for £4 4s. and costs.

The further sum of Bs. was also allowed to plaintiff for expenses, the case having been adjourned since the 9th, at therequest of plaintiff's wife, who then agreed on plaintiff's part, to pay the expenses of adjournment.