MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 1891, 11 January 1867, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. WIDSBSDAT, ,JAS. 9.' (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) civil cases. !: Dpbedsx v. Guild.—Claim for £3O 6s Bd. The case was adjourned until the 23rd inst., for the production of a witness. The plaintiff appeared, and complained that he had been a great sufferer, and that lio "was in want of the money., lie undertook to go to Timaru in search; of the witness. . <7 SnPEEiNTENDESIT, JoKES.—Claimfor £45, the amount of an assisted passage. Mr D. M'lay appeared for the plaintiff. ■ . The defendant pleaded a set-off in the shape of work dono for Mr. Marshman. . His Worship ruled that the contract between the defendant and Mr Marahmari was. a matter. of private arrangement. Defendant must pay the. money to the Government, but he had his remedy against Mr Marshman. : As tho defendant could not pay the amount, a distress warrant was issued; ■Same t. CLOSE.-rClaim £2213s Id on similar; Vgrbuhds'.vJudgment for the plaintiff. : . Thiel, Mttioh asd Co. v. Hatwaed asd JOHSSXOS.—CIaim for £24 16s 7d on a dia-. honoured acceptance. " Judgment for plaintiff. SMAET AND SOOT V. 'CHiNaY.—Claim for £2o.'. 2s3d. 'i i The defendant pleaded a set-off. Judgment for plaintiff for £lO 7s 6d.. . ; ,y. Holly v. Bark akd.—Claim for: £26105. The case was adjourned until the 23rd inst., as tho defendant was absent at "the 'Vfest Coast, and the riTers we're impassable. Moseisox, Sclahdbbs & Co. v. G. Holmbb & Co.—Claim for £2l. _,, Mr Cottrell. for plaintiffs, and Mr. Garrick for defendants. v Alfred Heslop, clerk to the plaintiffs, stated that the defendants had informed the firm that a ■ box belonging to them was lying at the station, but that it had been opened and some goods abstracted. Witness went to the station, and found that the box had been opened and a package of , shirts taken out. The ■ box arrived: by the_ Bom-, bay. ; The missing : goods.' were inoluded in the account produced. Witness left a memorandum on the subject.with the defendants, and shortly, afterwards Mr Richardson came to the plaintiffs' office, and said that his firm had taken advice, and' tbat they were, not liable for the loss incurred. E. Richardson, partner in the firm of G. Holmes and Co., stated that he saw the package in question. At'first it appeared in good order, but he afterwards found that.. it had been opened. : . —Tippets stated that the package' appeared to. be slightly stained. On turning it over one of the; boards fell out, and the injury done to the box was discovered. .'

Captain Turner; of the steamer Mullogh, stated; he received two packages from the Bombay. They, were both slightly stained.' . He saw the boxes placed on the wharf at Heathcoto; they appeared to be in good condition. ■, " :Mr Garrick contended that the damage, done to the case had occurred tn board the Bombay, and that consequently his clients were not liable. Mr Cotterell argued that the defendants were liable. The receipt given had precluded Ms clients from taking proceedings against the owners of the ; Bonibay.. The : defendants had not delivered the box to his clients in as good order as it was stated in the receipt to. have been, .handed, over to the defendants. ; Bji Worship tpok:time.:.to consider his decisiob, and stated that he , would give judgment on Friday morning. Thuesi)AT J; JA». 10. (Before 0. 0. Buwen, Esq., K.M.) . Jane Ballagher, an old offender, was charged, with having been drunk and disorderly. The offence was proved by the evidence of the appre.. hending constable, who stated that the prisoner was so much intoxicated that he was obliged to convey her to the lock-up in a wheelbarrow. ( _ His Worship sentenced her to a month's imprisonment, with a warning that the next time she was brought before the court she would be sentenced to a longor period of imprisonment. The list of convictions against her waa almost in? credible. James Surge was charged with having been drunk and incapable. He was dismissed with a caution, it being his first appearance before the Bench.; '. 5 . Several cases of breach of the Cattle Trespass Ordinance were, disposed of,'fines.varying &om,6s upwards being inflicted.. : David Gebbie was charged with being the owner of 2800 sheep infected with scab. ... ■ Defendant pleaded that he had been so much occupied that he. had not had time to dip the sheep.; the sheep had got scattered, and had to be mustered. Only a week had been lost. He was only aware .that three sheep were scabby. His Worship fined him £IOO, to be remitted if a clean: certificate was produced within six months,' from November 20, viz., May 20. The defendant hat! had a narrow escape from the penalty being summarily enforced, which would have been done had a conviction been previously obtained. He had been guilty of great neglect in suffering, his., infected sheep to stray, to the great danger of those of his: neighbours. Defendant must take, steps to clean his sheep immediately. John Dix was .charged with.furious riding in a public thoroughfare. . : . '.. _ The constable stated that the defendant was riding at the utmost speed of his horse. Samuel McKcown corroborated the evidence of the constable. Defendant was riding at a reckless pace.. . •• Alfred Gee statedtliat, oh December 8, he'saw a person riding furiously in.the.neighbourhood! of .' Barrett's Hotel, but that he was not sure that the defendant was the man. It was about 5 "p.m. Defendant said that he was only riding at a smart canter. . His Worship fined defendant'£l, observing that there was a great deal foo. much of this furious riding carried on in the city by persons who ought to know better. R. It. Armstrong was charged with having neglected to eradicate the thistles growing on some land belonging to him on Templet's Island. The offence having been ■; stated, the defendant pleaded that there were somany thistlea growing m the vicinityj, that'll was impossible to destroy them at once. Some'men hadbeen set to work on the land, and a great many thistles had been destroyed. : His Worship remanded the case for a week, in order to ascertain if proper exertions had been made to eradicate the thistles. E, M, Templer was charged with a similar offence. The Inspector of Thistles. : stated that a, great many thistles were growing on land in the occupation of the defendant. He pointed them out to ; the defendant, who said he should leavo. them to grow without making any effort, to destroy them.; ... Defendant pleaded that the land; in question : was part of hie run, and that he only held it on sufferance, under a licence to depasture stock. He should : contend that the case dia : not come; within the meaning of the act. Ilis Worship decided that the thistles were in this instance growing on the wasto lands of the Crown, and therefore the .defendant was not liable. ■■

'• JI. B. Thompkins was charged under the: Public : Houso Ordinance, with having permitted gambling in a licensed house in his occupation. . 7 ... Detective Feast said, on Dec. 22, ho wont to the defendant's hotel, and saw several persons throwing' dice into a bason j tho defendant was sitting by - taking , the money.; The ; throwing was' for turkeys, &c. . The defendant stated that he had a lottery in liia. house far : turkeys, &c. The custom had ; always, prevailed ;in Canterbury, ever sincothe ; ; foundation off the jiottlementi:";H6 : had i openly' ; advertised the lottery, and had no intention, op breaking the law', itad he been warned, he would ' have put an end to the lottery. " His Worship decided to dismiss the case, as ho was satisfied that an impression prevailed amongst publicans that these lotteries wero no broach of the Ordinance, and that in this instance there waj, in his opinion, no intention of wilfully violating the law.' Ho wished it to be understood that these lotteries were illegal.' . : : A , similar charge. , against Thomas Atkinson, of the Empire Hotel, was dismissed on the same : grounds as the preceding one, with, the: same caution.

r A case = against J; Hart, of the Doronihiro Arms, for allowing the light in front of his hotel to become extinguished, was dismissed, as his' Worahip decided. that defendant was not to blame. ■ W. Hartnall, . a licensed oab driver, was fined ,10a for plying for hire off . the cab. stand. Ho was also fined 10s for having loft his cab unattended. He was also find 10a for a repetition of the latter offence. C. Dalwood, a licensed cab driver, was charged with having delayed his cab hi Gloucester Btreet for nearly an hour.. Defendant pleaded that ho was engaged by a fare, and that ho was compelled to wait, His Worship ; ruled that it appeared that tho defendant hau been waiting for a bom fide fare, and: that the information (.would, therefore, be dismissed. ' J. Dunn was charged with having allowed an unlicensed person to drive his carriage. Tho defendant admitted having dono so, but pleaded that he was not plying for hire; he was engaged by a private party to convey them to a ball at the Town Hall. He was fined 10s. ■—.Simmons' was charged with having been absent from his cab for fifteen minutes) on Dee. : 13., Tho cab and liorse 'wero made faat to a rail at. Mr Dalgety's residence..; . Defendant pleaded that he was not plying for hire. He was engaged by Mr Dalgety, who is an invalid, and was occupied, whilst absent from tho cab, in helping him into his house. . . There was.another information of a similar na-'. ture, and under the saino circumstances, E. S. Dalgety corroborated tho statement of the defendant. : : His Worship said that he belioved tho defendant's statement, but; at the same time, he had been absent longer than necessary. No fine would bo inflicted, but h* must pay tho expenses of one witness, viz:, £l. Thomas Jones was charged with having had an illicit still in his possession. . . . Mr Wynn Williams oppcared in flupport of tho information. ~ ; A, Rose: lam an officer in.the Customs. From, intelligence received by me, I lodged an informa*: tion'against the 'defendant and another. 1 * Francis Amy: In July last defendant employed mo to buy an engine for distilling; the price was £l3l. It waspartly paid for in land. He took delivery of it at my place. I havo since seen it at his place, near the Sand Hills j it was inside his house. I sold it to Mm in good working condition; ho complained that it was not so. At his : request, .I. went to ? his house, and found it in pieces.: I soldered it, and he put some, water and stuff into it in order to see if it would work. It was fitted up in a lean-to. When I left, the apparatus as far as I know was in perfect.;w6rk-; ing order. The boiler and the copper worms were in working condition; when I left it was working.. By the defendant: You bought the engine, and your wife paid me themonoy. I gave you a receipt for £27 10s. Tho engine was described in the receipt as "work and goods." Mr Wynn Williams put in as. evidence the testimony as given by the defendant in another case. - . A Rose recalled: I went to the .defendant's place last Monday morning. A constable went with; me. We arrived there about 6 a.m. I went under the authority of the Customs Act. Tho defendant at first resisted our entrance. I went into a lean-to and saw a brick chimney and some empty casks. I did hot remove the casks. Tlioro. was an offensive smell from one ot them. There was a fireplace in the room. The defendant said that Amy had made him a machine, but it was not a still. It was lying in his (defendant's) premises, in pieces, and he was willing to give it up. . His Worship said that there could be do doubt but that defendant had had a still in his possession, and that he had been engaged in the distillation of spirits. Ho had rendered himself, liable to a penally of £SOO, but the minimum penalty of £IOO would be inflicted in this instance. ....,'

The defendant said that if his Worship would remit the penalty he would provd the guilt of Amy and Gleeson, who were tho parties really concerned.'V^y"

His Worship refused to. entertain any such proposition. He was willing to take security for the payment of tho fine. ...