MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2341, 24 June 1868, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, June 23. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) DitUNKENxm-Alexander Gordon was charged on the information of Constable Pratt, with having been drunk and incapable ast night. The offence was admitted, and his Worship remarking that it was the fourth time prisoner had been before the Bench on similar charges, imposed a fine of 20s

CIVIL CASES. T Wilson v.SEFoN.-Claim of £1917s 6d, foranLO.U. for cash lent, and interest at the rate of 15 per cent per anuum. Defendant acknowledged the signature of the 1.U.U., but said he had not received any portion of the money, having only signed it as security for the sum on behalf of a friend named Butts. Plaintiff alleged that the money had been paid to defendant, and that he had never acknowledged Butts in the matter at all. His Worship observed that by signing the 1.0. U. defendant had deprived plaintiff of Butts' security, and that judgment must therefore be given for the amount, less t (..'J? 10 ' 1 was deducted in consequence of plaintiff having charged compound instead cf simple interest.

J. Virtue y. J. Wmim'GTOn.-Claim of £lO for rent. Dr Foster for defendant, who Had occupied a house under memorandum of agreement, and had left before the speufisd time had expired. He stated that he had been released from occupation, and produced evidence in support of it. No evidence was adduced beyond that of plaintiff in contravention to this. His Worship remarked that in such a ease he must fall back upon the agreement, which, failing proof of occupation, could not enforce payment of rest. Nothing short of a lease could do this; and he must therefore nonsuit plaintiff, but he would not allow professional costs. Judgment for full amount and cost) wai

given in each of the following cases:—J. H. Hopkins v. Joseph'Nolan, £9 4s lid; T. and E. Pavitt v. Thos. Jones, £l9; J. Earnshaw T. H. T. Worsley, £1517s 8d; V7.B.Christy v. Thoß. White, £2 4s 6d ; Same v. E. Jackman, £2 3s 2d. In the ease of D. Middleton v. T. Ryan—£7 6s, plaintiff was nonsuited. In E. M'Dermott v. James Evans—£6 38 6d—judgment was given for £3 3s 6d j and in Aulesbrook v. Win. Boyce—£4 is 2d —ju-lgment was given for £llßs 2d. KAIAPOI. (Before W. B. Pauli, Esq., R.M., and C. Dudley, and J. E. Brown, Esqs.) Police Cases.—John Sims, charged with being the owner of ono horse found wandering at large within the town boundary, wbb fined ss. Bissett and TV. A. Crook, were fined 5s each for a similar offence. Pleuro-Pneumonia. John Perrin was charged by J. Hurse, Inspector of Diseased Cattle, with being the owner of three head of cattle found wandering at large within the infected district. Defendant did not admit that the cattle were wandering at large, as he had a boy minding them. B. Jeffs stated that he was employed to keep the boundary at the Girder Bridge. While there, he saw the cattle in question coming down the Drain road; no one was minding them, and they would have crossed the bridge, had not two men been crossing it at the time, which caused them to turn aside. He went towards Perrin's house, and found his boy, who did not appear to know anything about them. The boy went to look at them, and then said they were his father's cattle. Defendant stated that he occupied the land on either side of the road; he was much troubled with water, and it was the only place where he could run his cattle.

The bench informed him that the fact of his having the cattle minded did not exonerate him, However, in consideration of his owning the unfenced land on either side of the road, and that he did not properly understand the law, he would in this instance be fined only 10s per head. CIVIL CASES.

John Perrin t. Robert Rice.—Claim £2 10s, for depasturing cattle. Defendant had filed a set-off for £lO, for a steer which had been lost, and for which it was alleged the plaintiff was responsible. This plaintiff denied, and the Bench being of the same opinion, gave judgment for plaintiff and costs.

Perbin v Kidlet.—ln this case, plaintiff sued for £l9, value of a heifer lost through the act of defendant, and expenses incurred in searching for the same. From the evidence, it appeared that defendant, in driving aateer. his own property, off land in plaintaiff's occupation, had, for convenience of driving, taken with him two heifers, only one of which had since turned up, Jiefen dant admitted having removed the beasts, and proved that he drove them back; he did not have Perrin's permission to take them, nor did he give Mr Perrin any notice when he brought them back. The Bench considered the value, £l4, was excessive, and

gave judgment for £7, or the beast to be returned; also expenses, &c, £3 and costs.