MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2932, 2 June 1870, Page 1

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHBIBTCHUBGH. Wednesday, Juke 1. (Mm* 0. ttftwin, Esq., R.M., and his Worship#* Mayor.) Drunkenness.— Alfred Swaine, for having been drunk and incapable yesterday, was fined lOsr—James Vance, charged for the first time with the same offence, was discharged with a caution. False Pretences.— Wm. John Strachan, on remand, was charged with having obtained money from various persons by means of false pretences. The following additional

Maes were gone lnto:-W. Colombo street, said the prisonw^L?J >Cer > him on a Saturday evening, cheque to be cashed. The an»«mt Ifor1 for a ST* w j tneM « &ve h ® the money" f? th# Monday morning following soner called and asked witwas & t. pri ‘ over the cheque for a short time i j¥ ld Monday he gave witness an on’ * ¥ Treasury for £2 12s, but it was nn? k ” th « Henry 1 ewis, landlord of the Gi ao^ OQo ? ,e(J - Hotel, High street, said; On Wpdn°'j Armß Thursday last prisoner came to ht e / day 01 brandy on credit. He said he bad • 80me turned from Akaroa, where he J u,t re ‘ by the Land Office with a s U^ £en ** Witness gave him two shillings wn Jk rty ; brandy upon the strength of this repre ZJ* twn, and a promise of payment as soon received his money from the Gnr D pr. as “ e Witness had previously supplied nr« ent with liquor on similar statements P T w Maude said prisoner had not been emJ ,• in the Land Office, hut had done som P P » y£ £ in the Registration of Deeds department n was not on the permanent staff, b ,,t Jr employed at folio work, Altogethw ? earned £ll, of which he had ,. he and had given an order to his wife balance. May Grace Chudley, wife of R v"® Chudley, greengrocer, Colomb. street April last, prisoner borrowed £i from S la the purpose, as he said, of sending his Wa to Eaiapoi on Court business for Dr jv!, and that he would pay her when Dr Pn o , came down at 11 o’clock. She had nut ceived the money back again. She lent o?" money on the strength of the represent^ 6 made by the prisoner. Dr Foster dence, said the prisoner was in hi» ment in April last, but had never been aifc* rised to borrow money for anytW„ * prisoner made no defence, and thnti v® solicitor, Mr Cottrell, said he would being dealt with summarily, as sugaUf J l er the Bench, under the Vagrant Act mw y sent for trial at the Supreme Sun Worship, acting in accordance with this he would give prisoner the same sentence in all probability he would have received at th! Supreme Court. He would be imprisoned for six months, with hard labour.

CIVIL CASES. Intebpleadbb.—Babnaed V. Cobb ASr , Sawtell.—This was a disputed case as to the ownership of forty pigs. The present I dißtrained u Pon the goods of one (j. W. Eli, for an unsatisfied judgment of the Court, but the defendants had stepped in and claimed the pigs under a bill of sale held by them over Ell’s property. Mr Garrick an peared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. S. Williams opposed. A large amount of evidence was gone into as to the identity of the pigs seized with those included in the bill of sale but during the controversy it came out that a partnership had existed between Ell and a man named Hooper in respect of the pigs whilst the bill of sale to Messrs Cobb and Sawtell had been executed by Ell alone. Upon this appearing, Mr Williams withdrew from further opposition to the plaintiff’s claim. Dr Foster, who chanced to be present in Court, then claimed an interest in the pigs on behalf of Hooper, but admitting that he had not been instructed to oppose the interpleader, the Bench would not recognise him in the case. An order was made for the pigs to be sold in satisfaction of the plain, tiff’s suit.

Walton, Waknee and Co. v F. C. Mubkat.—This was an action to recover the sum of £74 Iss fid, for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs, in consequence of a quantity of barley purchased from defendant, a farmer on the Lincoln road, being inferior to sample. In all, there were 1745 bushels of grain, and on 11611 bushels of this, Is per bushel was claimed, and 6d per bushel on the balance. Mr Garrick appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Joynt defended. For the plaintiffs it was shown that, by agreement, they had purchased the barley to be delivered equal to the sample produced. When it was being delivered at the station, their clerk called defendant’s attention to its wet appearance and it was agreed that it should be taken to plaintiffs’ store and there sorted. Defendant subsequently repudiated this, and a survey by Mr B. Cobb, of the firm of Cobb and Sawtell, and Mr Crawley, manager for Mr John Grigg, was held, the result being an estimated damage from damp, smut, and inferior grain, of la per bushel in the 1161$ bushels purchased at 3s 9d per bushel, and fid per bushel in the 584£ bushels purchased at 3s 8d per bushel. The gentlemen connected with these circumstances were all called in evidence. In defence, it was endeavoured to be shown that the barley was according to sample, and that the plaintiffs had declined to agree to a joint survey except at the expense of defendant, and that the time at which the plaintiffs’ survey wag made, it was too late to form a fair estimate of the damage. The defendant denied the alleged conversation with Mr Gain at the Railway Station, but could not say positively that he had not been told of the dampness in plaintiffs’ office. Witnesses were called to prove that the grain was not damp when defendant despatched it, but the evidence was not conclusive, one witness averring that some ef the barley was damp, but he believed it was all taken out before leaving the farm. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was pleaded in answer to the point of joint survey, that the refusal to agree to one was subsequent to the survey made by Messrs Cobb and Crawley. Bis Worship, after careful consideration, said the Bench would give judgment for damages to the extent of fid per bushel, amounting in the gross to £43 16s—expenses of hearing, witnesses, and counsel—to the amount of £7 Ba, also being allowed. B. Reece v. W. H. Haedt.—Tint was a claim for £4O fis lOd on a dishonoured accommodation bill, drawn by defendant on one Isaac Walker, who had failed to meet it. Judgment was recorded for the full amount, and costs. L. E. Nathan v. J. E. Gkahak (as trustee of the Evening Mail Company, Limited.)—This was an action for the recovery of £26, as a preferential claim for three montha’ rent of premises in High street. The company were yearly tenants, under an agreement to plaintiff, the payment of rent to be quarterly. Two days before the expiration of the quarter for which rent was now claimed had expired, and consequently before the rent was legally due, tae atock-ia-trade and plant were removed to premises in another part of the city. tiff at the expiration of the quarter went to the present defendant, who, io consideration of a promise from plaintiff to refrain from following up the goods, promised to pay’ * e rent out of the estate. In answer to tm , defendant pleaded that the promise was on y conditional on plaintiff’s legal right to folio up the goods for execution being establisneo, and finding that it could not, he refused i pay the money. His Worship said plaintiff na no right to have his debt made a preferential claim upon the estate, for the rent not nei g due when the goods were removed, he na legal power to follow them up for distrai - Judgment would therefore be given for fendant with costs. „ . James Woodford v. M. K* Ash and M. B. Ashwin v. James Wqobfobd. _ These were cross actions, supported py Joynt for Woodford, and Ur Foster for Ash win. Ash win with two others, J Perrin and one Burrell, had entere preliminary arrangements for forming a pany for the preparation of flax bote, P tions to be carried on under the title o Phceuix Flax Company, on the Ohokso> Kaiapoi. Woodford, under a written agreement, was to become manager at Pr year, with house free, on completion o works, and he now claimed £37 108 J. £ Q e liminary work done under the instrucUonsoi Ashwin. Aahwin, in torn, denied any liability, and sued Woodford for *< on account of money lent and iure . °f , itte 4 and trap.. Woodford in turn pnlyadmittea having received £l2 10s, which he to being wages due to him or the amount now sued for. Woodford provea by sundry documents that he had hy tions from Ashwin conducted prelinnnary arrangements for the purchase of ni made out estimates and doneother o like nature. In support of the plea W

sition to this, had but little beyond personal' thinking that he *was doing anything on the ground, any more than any manager, elect would do, who was waiting lor the completion of the works which he was to have charge of. He however showed that operations were entirely, .suspended after the lapse of about six week* in the quarter claimed forjby Woodford, and that the projected -company-- had.- fallen through altogether. His worship! in -giving Juftteent, ssdd hft bad to tonsidff 1 iwfaat was fP£«mblnmdnt f or the work dons hr Woodford, and also fhw intentions with' which he was eintagwL.-: JdpMn?s ■ memory had appmrtyimiwrifitaT ■* but the Bench Woodford any wages-titer Im works vets'. judgment would therefore be givenln A*** ois? for £l7 10s, and in the second cake for toe defendant with costs. - KAIjApOI. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq,, 8.M.) VAGUANcrr.—John Crawford mas brought up In custody charged, on the information of .the police, with visible means of support. SergeantMulllft .proved the arrest, nnd aillecl seyeral wilbesse*, who profid that prisoner had been going about ftwa for several Weeks loafing on- the public general ly fbr “ cobblers ” and food. Prisoner promised thgikif his Worship would let him off he would nave the place. His Worship said that as prisoner had been let off last time on the samepretence, be would now be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in Lyttelton Gaol, with hard labour.