MAGISTRATE'S COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1672, 26 April 1866, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURTS.

CHRISTCHUECH. Wbdnesdat, April 25, (Before C. C. Bowcn, Esq., 8.M., and J. Hall, Eiq., J.P.) Elizabeth Wright charged with using obscene language was fined £2, or to be imprisoned for 96 hours. CIVIL CASES, Wynn Williams v. City Council.—His Worship said that there wa» »n application to bu made this morning on behalf of the City Council to have tho caso referred back to this Court by Mr. Justice Gretson for amendment so amended. Another caso of identical character had been removed from this Court by writ of certiorari, iind when ho was applied to on a former occasion to amond Mr. Williams's appeal case, he said that unless thero was an obvious advantago to be gained in hearing both cases he should cot amend. At tho samo time he gave leave for a re-applica-tion for amendment, which he understood would now be mado.

Dr. Fostor said that the Ion? vacation would be over in a fov days, and ho hopod, therefore, that the caso would bo amended. In his opinion there would bo no necessity for referring tho points in dispute to the Court of Appeal; it would therefore be bolter to go on with Mr. Williams's appeal There was a declaration in Mr. Allen's ease not yet Borved, and it would he possible to raiso obstructions in that cose more than in the other. Mr. Williams said it did not matter to him

whether his appeal wont on or not; ho, however, thought it would ho useless, as the Judge himself had said that his decision would not be satisfactory, Ho did not think Mr. Allen's case could be abandoned.

The Bench was of opinion that the case should be ameodod, but that counsel should settle it hotweon thorn first.

His Worship then said that ho would hear counsel on tho oaso in his private office on Friday, at eleven o'clock.

C. Alhsos v. Jamks WiMos.-Claim for £32. Mr. Cottrcll for plaintiff; Mr. Joynt for defendant.

This case had been partly heard on a previous day, when Mr, Joynt put in a deed of assign, ment, of which Mr. Cottrcll said he had received no notice according to tho Act. His Worship now decided that no notice was necessary under tho Act.—Caso dismissed. Damhsty v. Smith, This was claim for breach of .contract in not delivering sugar in terms of bills of lading, and for damage done to sugar by kcrosinc. Mr. Garrick for plaintiff; Mr, Duncan for defendant.

This was a re-hearing of tho case. Part of the evidenco had been heard on a previous occasion, namely, that of Mr. Harm-caves and Mr. Day, for the plaintiff, as to the damage ■dono to the sugar, and evidence was now brought forward on behalf of defendant to Bhew that the cargo was properly stowed, and that the sugar was damaged by salt wator (tho vessel being in every way seaworthy), through stress of weather, The Bench affirmed judgment for plaintiff for £99 2s 9d with costs.

St.' Quentin v, J. Wood.-Mi. Joynt ap. pcared for plaintiff, Mr. Garrick for defendant.

This was a claim for £sl Oa 9d, for work done and materials supplied. Defendant pleaded a set off of £2, and brought across action for non-per-formance of contract.

After the evidenco had been heard, Mr. Garrick contended that the work had not been properly done, and that the contract had not been performed in a reasonable time, Mr. Joynt said that Mr. St. Quentm had sworn that he could not get the material required, viz., glass in Christchurch, and had to send to Dunedin for it, which had caused the delay. He also contended that the job had been done in a workmanlike manner, and in a reasonable time.

His Worship said that with regard to the second caso there was no doubt that it was put up as a defence, and probably originated from the annoyance of plaintiff at what he conceived to be mischief done to him. He thought it was proved that the work was not properly done. The expert who gave evidence for plaintiff only saw the outside, and he was not very enthusiastic about it. He would therefore deduct £8 from the amount claimed for tho' work being the mean of the amount estimated by two witnesses for putting it in proper order. He did not think the claim for damages made out. He would give judgment for £Af) 18s 9d, allowing the set off. the costs to b'e divided. S. Nutt v. T. M'Caktsex.—This was a claim for £42 3i 6d.

Fromtho evidence it appeared that plaintiff was stopping with defendant nine months, during which time he had not paid anything, but was assisting him occasionally with a little work. It also appeared that plaintiff used to get money from defendant's sister, and afterwards married her. Tho amount claimed was made up of money for work done and money spent on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff said he had £l9 when he first went to stop with defendant. Defendant only admitted 30s as the amount legally due lrow him to plaintiff. His Worship gave judgment for 30s. J. Gilbeet v. J. Cook —This wasa claim for £4O for damage done to a mare. Mr, Harper appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Garriek for defendant, It appeared from the evidence for plaintiff that the mare was wounded in both fore feet, and it would take some time for it to recover. Defendant had borrowed it of plaintiff. From the evidence for defendant it appeared that the horse had not been injured while defendant had it, excopt that it had a little hair off the heel like the other horses from sinking in the soft land where it was ploughing. The horses had no shoes on, as they were unnecessary, and the ro)ts had been taken out of the land. The mare was given back free from injury. His Worship said he did not think there was any case for damages, as the mare appeared to have become diseased from long exposure to wet. Judgment for defendant. J. E. Hopkihs v. T. Posdie. This was a claim for £4615 aSd for timher. ■ The defence was that there was not the proper quantity of timber, according to order, part of it, viz., the 6cantling, not being of the proper size. His Worship said, after hearing the evidence, that delivery had been accepted of the timber ; he must therefore give judgment for the amount. Bobi. Swan v. J. Creisceu. Claim for £2715s for breach of agreement, Mr. Cottrell appeared for plaintiff, defendant in person. Plaintiff is a commission agent, and sued defendant, who is a farmer, for not having supplied him with some oats which he had engaged to buy of him and had sold by sample, and which defendant had engaged to supply. After hearing the evidence, his Worship gave judgment for £1 with costs. Peecival's Tbcstebs v. Johxstos axd Williams. This was a claim for £24 13s 9d, to which defendants pleaded a set off of £2B 9s 6d. Mr. Percival who appeared for the Trustees said, that it was not competent for the Solicitors for the Trust to pay themselves out of money, which they had received for the Trust. Mr. Wynn Williams said that he had formerly handed over all the papers, although he had a claim on them, somo years ago. Mr. Williams then proceeded to detail the nature of his set off, which consisted of money paid out of pocket, irrespective of costs, on behalf of the estate. After some further evidence his Worship said that all money paid by the Solicitors on behalf of the estate could lawfully bo refunded from the Trust moneys in their hands. His Worship then gave judgment for defendants with leave to plaintiffs to appeal.