MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2136, 25 October 1867, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHEISTCHURCH. 'IHCBBDAY, Ocx. 24. (Before A. Buck, E. J. S. Harrnan, and C, K, Blakiston, Esqrs.) Eosannah Hill was charged with haTing boon drunk and disorderly on the previous niglit, She is an old offender, and was fined 20s. George Macaulay was charged with violent and disorderly conduct. Constable Eares deposed that accused kicked against the palings of Mrs Mitchell's house, and threw two stones against that house and auothor. The accused denied the charge. He was fined 10s. Elias Jackman was charged with having ti'olently beaten and assaulted Thomas Sangster at St. Albans, on the 18th inst. Xho prosecutor said the accused had struck him and kicked him out of his house. He (witneii) had been a servant to the accused, and had been dismissed, and he had returned to the house, when the accused assaulted him. He went to see the accused when he returned to his house. Alfred Swiih said he had charge of the barracks, and 011 the 18th inst. p osecutor, who had been hired by the accused, returned to the barraeks, and said he had been assaulted by his employer. The accused said that the prosecutor would notwork, but lay in hi: bed nearly all day, and altera few days ho went to town and returned neit morning aud still would not work, and he turned iiiin out of his house. He was angry at the tune and might have used him roughly, but he was ue greatest loafer he had ever kinnrn. The Beuch said the as-ault had been pro™, but they considered a small fine would answer tilt! purposo of justice. The accused was fined 10s. CIVIL CASES. Scrimshaw v. Moss.—Claim of £3 tor three months rent on an agreement. . Plaintiff said he had let a tenement to dftendant's wife in defendant's absence at 5s per we™> but in writing out the agreement he had writte by mistake 5s per month. Defendant had p»M hia some rent at tho rate of £1 a month, an still owed him £3, which he refused to pay. Defendant's wifn sni»l she had taken the house® 5s a month, on a writte 1 agreement, to which sltf hadallixed hormaik, Tlie agreement in lour was not tho one sb. had signed. She hid P' 1 plaintiff all tlie rent she had agreed to pay * . had not paid him at tho rate of os a week', bu 5s a month, as agreed upon. . Plaintiff replied thai, it was preposterous w suppose he could have let a house tor os a nion ' 1 and challenged the witness t > produce h» rert'l for the rent she had paid; but she said 1 not received a receipt, l'luintill had promise send her 0110 but had not done so. Judamcnt for tho amount claimed. , Marshall v. Rossek.—Claim of wages, twelvo days and a quarter, at Ss a day. , Plaint iff said lie had been at work for ' dftnt, at times when other men did not wor , that was liovv he made out his claim. We" on the roads, and had worked in wet well as dry. He was a foreman, and wit anything could be done he was there to » • j. Defendant sai l his aecnunt ot p's" ll * t did not agree with plaintiff's account, is of plaintiff's time corresponded with ue his other men, and he was not aware tiff had worked more time than they hat • - Packer said he had been employed on roads by the defendant, Ho never saw P« at work when the other men were away,. wns not employed nil tho time plfliutin Judgment for defendant. . OURK order for A given as secunl) tor '"piamtiff said ho had employed d 1 collect bis accounts, and defendant was £5 for doing so but he, had co eded «n ' Ho subsequently lent defendant ly • ■ of which ho received an order for■ t» » ■ I'reece, which that gentleman declined 1 P^, Defendant said he had collected P

accounts, for which lie was entitled to receive £5 liy agreement, which ho had not boon paid, although ho had collected what he could from the list of debtors he received at tlietimo. Plaintiff liad received £4 on tho ordor on Mr Proece, and the £5 he (plaintiff) owed him would pay tho other £4, and leave a pound coming to him. Ifono of tho debt# in tlvo list ho had received were outstanding now, Ho had collected about £IOO. Somo of tho debts had been paid to plaintiff, but he (witness) had asked for them. Judgment for the defendant. Lucas v. Lumi»—-Clami of £l4 for mcnev lent. '

Plaintiff said ho lent defendant £2O to put up a cottage tlirco years ago, and ho Lad been paid £C back. He did not band the money to defendant but to a mate of bis for defendant. Ho did not take any security. Defendant said ho did not owo plaintiff anything. Ho had borrowed (ho money of Williams and Williams told him that £lO of 'it belonged to plaintiff. caso was adjourned till next Tuesday, for the attendance of VVilliams, 1 miAI'QL Tobsdat, Oct. 22. (Before W. B. Pauli, Esq., E.M., and C. Dudley, Esq,) Turn, a Maokt, t. Geo. Fisher,-Claim of £5 for damage dono to a section of land by a firo which originated on defendant's property. From the evidence it appeared that a firo which commenced on defendant's land spread ou to a section owned by the plaintiff, destroying a quantity of feed, and slightly damaging a fence. The amount sued for, however, was not entirely on account of such damage, but for labour employed by plaintiff to extinguish the fire. Dofendant admitted that the fire originated near his house, but he could not account for_ it otherwise than that a strong nor'-wester, which was blowing at the time, had carried a spark from tho chimney, and ignited a quantity of peat. When tho fire was first observed, it did not covor moro than about a yard and a-half square, but before water could be procured it had spread over an area of 30 or 40 yards, and it was then impossible to extinguish it, Tho fire was burning for about a fortnight. The Bench said it did not appear from the evidence that any very large amount of damage had been dono to plaintiff's property, and therefore udginent would only be given for 10s and costs, but defendant must remember that he was liable for the full amount of damage caused to other property by fire commencing on his own, no matter whether the result of carelessness or accident, and therefore he must exercise more care in future.

Ross and Co., t. E. Si.mczbe.—Claim £ls. Judgment for plaintiffs and costs. G. M. and H. Lee, v. J, Bots.—Claim £6. Judgment bj consent.