MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2523, 3 February 1869, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHUHCH. Tuesday, Feb. 2. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Assault.—Henry Thos. Lawrence, on remand, was brought up in custody, charged with having assaulted Mary Freeman with intent to do her grievous bodily harm, Mr Slater appeared for the prisoner, who was apparently about 16 years of age. The evidence is unfit for publication, and was taken with closed doors, The prosecutrix, who is ten years old, was evidently still suffering from the ill-usage she had received, Prisoner was committed for trial, bail being accepted in two sureties of £SO each. CIVIL CASKS. Rowland v Jenkins.—This was an action to recover £ll 13s 4d, amount of 10 U given by defendant in part payment for the release of a mob of sheep from the Leeston pound. The plaintiff conducted his own case, and Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. The evidenco in support of the claim went to show that 743 sheep belonging to defendant were impounded about six o'clock on the evening of the 24th of December, and released at a little after 2 p.m. on the following day. They wore duly supplied with oaten straw and water. The charge made for this, over and above the ordinary expenses, was at the rate of fourpence per head as provided for by the ordinance; the period the sheep were in the pound counting as two days. Defendant when releasing them complained of the sum demanded being exhorbitant, but ultimately paid £5 in cash, and gave th« I 0 U on which the action was based for the balance. For the defence it was contended that the sheep bad not been supplied with

sufficient or proper food whilst in the pound, and a sample of the straw taken from plaintiff's stack was put in as evidence. His Worship in giving judgment dwelt at some length on the oppressiveness of the ordinance in such cases, but said ho was bound to be guided by the scale of charges there laid down, whatever objection there were against it in equity; at the same timo,however, it was apparent that stock when impounded were intended to be supplied with proper food before the clmrpes on that account could be claimed, and judging from the straw produced he was decidedly of opinion that such had not been done in the present case. He should therefore give judgment for the defendant, the £5 plaintiff had already received, being sulllcient to cover all other poundage expenses, and leave somewhat over £1 for the food which had been supplied, an amount which he considered more than equal to the value of the straw given to the sheep. The costs would be divided.

Bullock v. Kneesiiaw.—This was a claim for £lB, value of a ton of flour which plaintiff had been sued for by Messrs Wood Bros., but which should have been paid by defendant in accordance with an agreement accompanying a dissolution of partnership, formerly existing between himself and the plaintiff. Mr Slater supported the case, and Mr Joynt defended; the latter ultimately obtaining a non-suit, on the ground that plaintiff had not yet paid the amount to Messrs Wood, Bros., and was not therefore entitled to claim it from defendant. Wilton Warner and Co. v. Bullock.— In this action the plaintiffs sued for £4 7s Gd, damages alleged to have been sustained by non-delivery of 300 bushels of oats sold to them by the defendant, A written agreement, signed by defendant was put in evidence to prove the sale at Is ll|d per bushel, and it was shewn that plaintiffs had given 2s 3d per bushel for oats during the period in which defendant's were to have been delivered. Defendant said he was unable to procure sacks, but admitted that he subsequently sold the oats without giving the plaintiffs any notice about the alleged difficulty. Judgment was given for full amount and costs.

In the following cases judgment was also given for full amount and costs:—Lane, Bros v. O'Hara, £1 lis 6d; Ockford and Wood v. Care, £4 16s; Avon Road Board v, Cleary, £llss; Jebson v. Butterfield, £2 10s. Transfer of Licences.—The licence of the London Restaurant, Cashel street, was transferred from C. Patterson, deceased, to his widow. An application was made for the licence of the Rising Sun Hotel, Caledonian Road, to be transferred from Fisher Hallam to Henry Stevens, but it was postponed for a week in order that enquiries might be made respecting the latter.

LYTTELTON. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Judgment was given in the following cases, with costs:—P. Fox v. A. Scott, £4 19s Id ; Same v. John Barker, £3 7s lOd ; Bowden v. S. Butler, £5 9s 7d : Same v.- H. Anderson, U3s 7d; Same v. W. Vincent, £1 16s lOd; Percy v. Morris, £l j Forbes v. Palmer, £2 5s 9d. In this case defendant was ordered to pay it in a week, or to go to prison for one month.

KAIAPOI. (Before G. L. MellUh, Esq., R.M., C. Dudley, and W. M. Maskell, Esqrs.) Cattle Trespass.—J. Birch was charged on the information of Alfred Clark with being the owner of three horses wandering at large. The informant stated that arrangements between his landlord and defendant had been come to respecting a new fence, and requested that the case should be dismissed on payment of costs. Judgment accordingly.

civil cases. Thompson v Leggett.—Mr Porter, on behalf of Thompson, objected to his having to pay the cost of ut distress warrant. The Clerk to the Bench had omitted an item of 12s, costs of subpoena and a witness' expenses. The Clerk had since sent him by the hand of the bailiff an official notice, and a request that the amount should be paid. On his refusing to notice this, the Clerk issued a distress warrant for the amount. The 12s had been paid, and Mr Porter objected to the cost of the warrant. The Bench decided to ab.Ue this, and directed the Clerk to summon instantly when anything of the kind should occur again.

Unsatisfied Judgment.—Charles Simpson sued Charles Thomas for £4 16s, for which judgment had been given on a former occasion. Defendant was ordered to pay in a week, or go to jail for a month. Plaintiff's expenses £l, were also allowed. H. Hinge v. A. Kynnocic—Claim, £39 17s 2d. An adjournment was applied for by C. Lezard for defendant, on account of a set-off. This was opposed by plaintiff. The Bench informed defendant's agent that they would hear and decide the case, but suspend execution for sufficient time to allow of an application for rehearing. Defendant's agent consented to judgment on this understanding. Thomas Cahill v. William Robinson.— Claim, £2B Is 2d, Mr Thomas, clerk to Mr Joynt, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Cowlishaw, for defendant. The claim was for the amount of a cheque drawn by defendant in plaintiff's favour, which the latter had lost from his pocket. Mr Cowlishaw objected to the summons having been taken out at Kaiapoi; he was informed by Mr Robinson by telegram that it should have been taken out at the Amuri Resident Magistrate's Court, Nelson. He did not know if Kaiapoi was the nearest Court with jurisdiction over £2O to Mr Robinson's place. Considerable discussion ensued on this point. After examination of the Gazettes, &c, it was decided that that portion of the Nelson Province south of the Marlborough Province is within the jurisdiction of the Kaiapoi Court in cases over £2O. Plaintiff said lie had been shearing. Mr Robinson gave him a cheque which he had since lost; he had applied several times to Mr Robinson for a new one, but had always been put off; he had offered to give a security that defendant should not be called on to pay the same amount again. Mr Cowlishaw objected to the action as it had been brought improperly; the claim was made for work instead of for the amount of the cheque. His client was quite prepared to pay the money on receiving a sufficient guarantee of indemnity from plaintiff. No indemnity had been offered until the commencement of the action. Mr Cowlishaw cited as an authority the Law Amendment Act, 1856, sec. 17. Judgment for defendant with costs, intem-leader—ln this case W. H. Lane was called upon to prive his claim to certain horses, levied upon by the bailiff, in Barclay v. Lawrence and Barday v. Batchelor. Mr! Cowlishaw appeared for claimant and put in hills of sale. W. Vigers, clerk to the Supreme Court, proved the registration, After hearing this evidence, also that of claimant and Lawrence, the Bench decided that the bills of sale could no', be set aside and ordered the release of the horses: costs, £8 7s against Barclay. G. J". Howard v. R. K. Kenbick.—Claim, £4O Ss; setoff', £4O 3s ljd. Judgment by consent for balance, plaintiff to pay costs between Rungiora and Kaiapoi, us he should have sued in Kangiora for the balance, which amount was within the jurisdiction of that Court. Michael Burke and J. Williamson v. J. S. Cavekiiill—Claim, £25 for 28 perches of road on Highfield Hun. One of the plaintiffs stated that he had made the road, acting under the instructions of Mr Stevenson, an engineer, who he believed was acting for Mr Caverhill. When it was done, Mr Stevenson gave him an order on defendant Caverhill for the amount, who said he knew nothing about it and refused to pay it. Mr Stevenson being sworn, read a letter from Mr Caverhill, dated May 9, asking him to give an estimate of cost of making the cutting in question. He drew out a specification which was approved by Mr Caverhill, and under his instructions, he let the work to plaintiffs. After it was done, defendant rode over it, and said that the work was well done, but subsequently he refused to pay for it, saying he would not do so unless lief was" compelled. He saw him on June 3, and had a conversation on the subject; he asked him if he would object to pay £25 for

the work; lie said if it coat £6O he must have it done. The work was not done b;/ the Bond Board, if it had been it would have been on the Government line of road. It was upon Mr Tabart's land, and was made for defendant's convenience alone—though it had since proved a great convenience to many others. He said he would not pay unless he was made, and gave no reason for saying so. Judgment for amount and costs.

In the following cases judgment was given for full amount and cosis .—Black v. Petrie —Claim, £7 2s. Thomas Thompson and Co. v. Thomas Evans-Claim, £45 5s lud. Immediate distress, G. F. Day v. John MillerClaim, £2. Kirch and Co. v. it. HarperClaim, 12b 6d. Same v. C. Brown-Claim, £2 7s 7d. Hoss v. Oldman—Claim, £4019s Id. Jiumaway v. Stuart-Claim, £1 ss. This case wus adjourned at plaintiff's request. Sui'OUthu Housb Licbkcb—A. renewal of licence was granted to James Bow.