MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2593, 28 April 1869, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

LYTTELTON. Tcrsdat, A fail 27. (.Before W. Donald, Esq., RAL) Hill v. Brat—Claim 12s 6d. for goods supplied. Defendant denied haring had the goods. Judgment for 11s, and 9s coats Joints v. Bkacc. Master of the schooner Aurora—Claim £2S. Mr N alder appeared for the defendant and tendered £is Is 4-1 into Conn. Plaintiff stated that the defendant engaged him on the 6th instant in Auckland as sailing master; be ru to hare the regular wages ont of the port of Auckland ; he" left on 22nd instant, and claimed this amount at £l2 per month. There was no agreement as to what he was to receive; he kept the log of the vessel and sailed the ship. Several »inesses* were called, bat their evidence did not strengthen the case. One of the witnesses looked upon the plaintiff as master of the vessel, and not sailing master. Defendant and part owner staled he engaged plaintiff as mate, at the tunal rate of wages out of the port—£6 to £7. Smith of the Excelsior, and Captain McDonald of the GoUen Isle, stated that £7 was the nsnal rite of wages. Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount paid into Court, plaintiff to par his own costa.

I kaiapol i vßefore G. L. Mellish, Esq. EJL, I and C. Dailey, Esq.) ! There were forty-two ease* «* dow* for ! hearing. | Bweach or the Prst-tc-Hors* OwnpsatfCK, —W. Bomip was charged with haringaaid I drink on a Sunday. Defendant admitted haring sold drink, bat it was to a Inttfler. i John Benson bad a pint of beer in Bat-nip's hotel, bat was not terred by defendant Annie Thompson said that the man case to tke borne and sail he was a tnreQer, and she ie: his hare a pint of beer. She refaaed him ■fce dri k- and then be said be was a traralkT. Had been taU not to serre any bat travellers, i Tote Bench decided not to inflict a fine in , this ease. They mast caotioa bin not to i allow any person to tap,ly drink in his boose oc Sundays who was not well acquainted with j :be people in the place. Charles Oram was 1 also caiyed with a similar offewee. Defend- I ant admitnd the charge, bat wished to say a j ftw kerb h extcaaim The man was a | stthletnac of Banc and Co.‘a. and ha ring to j w.rk on Sunday* be let him hare a pint of ; reer in the morning «MtW in the ceding. The Reeier.t Magistrate said that al- j h'tscb defendant's br-aseww generally well ■ ctsdatod. be nest in flirt a heavy tse in these cases Toe infringement of tie law had enssed a man to be irons and disorderly, and had tbs canoed a iatoibx of the Sabbath. Fined £->- ; Bteach or ras finu Tostraas Oar>ixatcb. —J. Pttawea admitted to being the owner of a gent tethered in a pnbhc thorooghfara Charge ainittai. flani l«h ; and costa. erru. a» Unamras Jmsmta—C. Dnsur r. f Eumit-CUk. £5 15a fti. Offririaat | nndea teg narrn — and offered » pay £l , a month. Oteer aewtetogfr. with n wiairt'a i imjntenmeal in Mate j J. \ Wnm w. Jan. Hruxs. —(Van X 9 | life. Ordered to pny £4 ia a maath, and j

£1 a week afterwards, or in default, 3 months’ imprisonment.

Flaxton School Committee ▼, Arthur Campbrll.— Claim £i. Defendant said he sent .£1 on the 15th of the month, but they refused to take it. Mr Threlkeld (Chairman of the School Committee), said the rammons was issued at the time, and the defendant refused to pay the costs ; he had called at the Collector’s house on his way down for the summonses, and told him to receive no rates till lie returned. Defendant also objected on the ground that so large a rate as £l was not needed. Mr Threlkeld said that a proper estimate of expenditure had been published, and the rate was in accordance with it. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v. Michael Beekek.— Claim £l. Defendant objected to the manner in which the rate had been applied for. No notice had been given, except by advertisement in the papers. He would not have objected to the rate, hut he was a householder, and had paid rent for his house. He had come down on Wednesday, and bad himself been refused a summons, and was told to take proceedings in Bangiora Court; he therefore objected to being summoned to Kaiapoi. The objections were disallowed, and judgment given for the amount. Same v. F. Baker. —Claim £l. Defendant objected on the ground that he lived four miles from Flaxton school, and three from Rangiora. He preferred to send his children to Hangiora. The Chairman said defendant’s place was within the boundary. The Resident Magistrate recommended defendant to memorialise the Board of Education on the subject of altering the boundaries, and gave judgment for amount and costs. Same v. W. Ltnskey— Claim £l. Case adjourned. Same v. John Armstrong. —Claim £l. Objected to on the ground that he lived in one of Mr Weir’s houses, on bis farm. There were two on the farm. Judgment for amount and costs.