MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5715, 20 June 1879, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTOHUHOH. Thpbsdat, Jims 18. (Before G. L. MelHsh, Esq., 8.M.) Illegitimate Child.— -John Haggle was brought, up on remand charged with failing to support his illegitimate child, and was remanded to Wellington. OEUELTX TO A Hobsb.—John . Lincoln pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a horse with a sore shoulder, and was fined 10s and costs. CIVIL CASES. Claim bob Injubus. —Daniel Taylor v. W. Brice, claiip for £SO for injuries sustained by an accident owing to defendant’s horse knocking plaintiff down in Cathedral square, on May 6. This case was heard the previous day, and judgment adjourned. The counsel in the case now agreed to enter a judgment for defendant without costs. His Worship said it was a hard case, but the defendant was not to blame in the matter. Judgment entered for defendant. Alebed Bingwood t. W. Mbssbnqbe, June. —This was an action in which plaintiff sued for £3 10s, being the amount of one week’s wages, in lieu of a week’s notice. Mr Joyce appeared for defendant. The plaintiff, who was a cook in defendant’s employment, stated that on June S, the meat had run short, and when Mr Messenger came in, he (Mr Messenger) told him to go, and tendered him a cheque for £2. He (witness) was not under the influence of liquor. The cheque was for four days’ work. Mr Joyce asked if witness used bad language that morning. Witness: You go into the kitchen, and see if you will not use bad language. It is enough to make anyone angry to have the mistress dogging one every moment, and no proper assistance in the kitchen. Defendant stated that he was away that day, and was sent for. Upon returning, he found his patrons leaving —as there was no food for them. Plaintiff was drunk, and unable to do his work properly. There was plenty of meat but it was naoked about and spoiled by plaintiff. Witness paid plaintiff £2, and told him to go, as he had forfeited his right to a week’s notice. Rate James, a waitress in Mr Messenger’s employ, gave corroborative evidence, and added that plaintiff used very bad language. Mrs Messenger stated that plaintiff was very drunk, and scattered the meat all over the place. In answer to plaintiff, witness said she did not recollect the time she sent for Mr Messenger $ all she knew was that if she had had wings she would have flown for him. His Worship gave judgment for defendant, with costs. E. Gbobgb v. Oheistophbb Dalwood.— This was an action in which plaintiff sought to recover £lolßs 6d, incurred in bringing into court an information of assault against the defendant, for damages sustained by that assault, and for advertising defendant’s apology in the various local papers. Dr Poster appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Slater for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that some time ago he had taken criminal proceedings against Dalwood for assault. The latter stated that if the information was withdrawn he would pay legal and medical costs, and also for all damage done. Plaintiff agreed to this course, providing the Bench concurred. Defendant consented to the terms, and to make a public apology in print. The terms were first made outside the Court, and Dr Doyle and Mr Izard were present. Dr Doyle, on being called, stated that he heard the conversation between the litigants, and understood defendant to say he would pay all costs and make an apology. It was the defendant who made overtures to settle the matter. The defendant, who had paid £5 10s into Court, urged that he had only agreed to pay Court expenses and the doctor’s bill, but oertainly not for advertising. He had put in a written apology at the time, and gave plaintiff permission to do what he liked with it) but if he advertised it he did it at bis own expense. Mr George had sworn what was false, if he swore the apology was to be put in print. After hearing counsel on both sides the Bench gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £Blls and costs. Tbustbh ib Cabo Bbos.' Estate y. H. Hops. —Claim, £5 18s Bd. Mr Slater for Slaintiff. Mrs Hope appeared in Court and isputed the debt, producing at the same time a receipt. Mr Slater stated that the receipt did not say how much was paid; it only said “ received on account.” The plaintiff stated that the amount originally due was £7lßs 3d, hut that he had received £2 on account, for ,

which amount the receipt wot only intended He hod entered the sum received in hit book nt the time. (Book produced ehowi gan entry ol £2.) He hod omitted to state the amount received on the receipt given, but that wot oil he received from defendant. The defendant taid that the owed nothing, having paid everything that woe due. She had never made any promite to pay it by instalments, and had never received any application for the money since it wae paid. Mr Blater argued that it was only oath for oath, and the auestkm was, which the Oonrt would believe. The hooka showed that only £2 had been entered, and plaintiff moat positively a wore tbafc he hod received only that turn. Hit Worth ip taid he thought defendant entitled to a verdict j he would give her the benefit of the doubt. She had sworn the had paid the fall amount, and produced the receipt. People should bo very careful how they gave receipts. Judgment would be for the defendant with coetf. . Mxsobmankop*.—City Council v, O. B. Bankin, claim £2 16s 8d } , judgment for £1 6t 9d.—-Church Property Trustees v. M. B. Berry, claim £l7t j judgment for amount and costs.—Trustees in Caro’s Estate v. O. Upton, claim £2 16t Id j judgment for amount and costs.—Same t. A. Shaw, claim £4 13 1 odt judgment for £2 3s 6d.—J. Bice v. W. Jeffrey, olaim £1 10a; judgment for amount —«<* costs.—J Lynn v, A. Bell, claim £3 17s 6d; judgment for £2 10a.—T. Bowkint v. Bella Simpson, judgment summons £2 2s Bdj defendant was ordered to' pay within fourteen days, or in default, to be imprisoned for one week.-—ln the following cases, j ndgmenta for Slaintiffs with costa wen recorded by ©faultMargaret M'Neish v. W. 'B. Walker, claim £6 17sAd; S. D. Nathan v. F. Hey, claim £1 .Is; Same v. T. Brealey, claim £3 Si 9d (judgment for £3 Os 9d)j J, Oornwall v. M. A. Gillman, claim £1 12s j Mrs Nicoi v. A. Lane, claim £1 la; A. Berry v. J. Birch, claim £1 10s j E. W. Boper v. W. Cook, claim 17s j T. Dixon t. T. Bash, claim £lO 8s 3d j H. Matson and Co. v. O. Davis, jun., claim £2 10s; P. Innos and Co. r.J. W ehh, claim £lO 10s ; B. Richardson v. T. Bevan, claim £ll3s lid; H. Matson and Co. v. A. 0. Goodger, claim £l4 18s Id j H. J. Shaw v. H. Rodgers, claim £1 9s Bd.