MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7484, 25 February 1885, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. V Tuesday, Feb. 24. (Beforeß. Beetham, Esq., R.M., and H. J. Hall, Esq.) Drunkenness. —A first offender, who failed to surrender to his bail, was fined 10s for having been drunk at the railway station. He had crossed the line right in front of an approaching train, and had to be taken to the police station in a cab.— G. L. Waterman, who had been drunk in the R.M. Court on the previous day was fined 10s, or 48 hours' imprisonment. Protection Order. The adjourned case against G. L. Waterman, whose intoxication had been the reason for- an adjournment from the previous day, was dealt with. Mr Weston was solicitor for the complainant, Emma Waterman, who said that she had previously had'a protection order dating from December, 1881, but had recently compromised this by living with her husband again. However, he had given way to drink again and abused his wife very • much recently. 'The present application was simply for an order tecting her earnings, and the Bench made the order as desired.

Civil Cases.—Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the cases of Inglis* Executors v. Brown, claim .£3O; Montgomery and Co. v. Goodhead, claim £1 9s Id ; Bull's Trustees v. Angell, claim 10s 6d; Whitcombeand Toombs v. Graham; claim £1; Brooks v. Drake, claim £4t 75.~ Sogers v. Batley, Parker v. Fisher and Wallis and Reeue v. Templar were adjourned to March 3.—Judgment was for plaintiff in Whitcombe and Toombs v. Blackburn, claim JB3 6s 4d.—ln Baker v. Peagram, claim £7 18s 6d, judgment was for £7 5a 6d and costs.

TIMABU. Tuesday,'Feb. 24. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.) Drunkhnness.—J. Wilson was fined 10s, or 48 hours' hard-laLour.—Joseph Fleming, charged on remand with lunacy from drink, was discharged, having recovered. Wife Desertion.—Edward James Ellis was charged with deserting his wife, Sarah Ellis, and four children on Nov. 7, 1884, v Ordered to pay £2 forthwith, and 25s per week afterwards.

Disobeying an Order.—The case against James Johnson, for not obeying an order of the Court to pay 5s per week towacda the support of his son in the Industrial. School, Burnham, was further adjourned for four weeks.

Civil Cases. Ogilvie and Byers v. W. B. Kinley, claim £1 18s, for iron work. Struct out. —In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs "with costs: —Coy and Drummond v. C. Eobinson, £3 6s 2d, drapery; E. Webster v. E. Hunt.. £6 ss, grocery ; E. G. Kerr v. J. H. Dean, sen, £2 7s, subscription; A. D. Welk v. J. E. Black, £1 15s 9d, ironmongery ; same v. Surridge, .£8 10s 9d, painters' materials ; F. and C. H. Hooper v. C. Wells, £6 8s 3d, bwsad.—W. Postlethwaite v. A. C. M'Allister et uxor, £9O interest on mortgage. Judgment by consent for .£4B and costs. —E. Wilkin and Co. v. Allan and Stumbles, .£IOO, amount of an indemnity., and Coy and Drummond v. S. Hatfield, £27 15s 6d, judgment summons. Adjourned for seven days.—W. Tosswill v. G. Pennman, claim £ll 2s lld ! for law costs; same v. C. Downes, claim £l2los lOd for similar costs. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. —J. Pearson v. J. Eobinson, claim £8 15s 6d, for ploughing; judgment for plaintiff for £6 7s and costs. Andrew Gingle3 v. Michael Seyb, claim £6, wages ; judgment for amount claimed, less 55.6 d, the value of a wrench lost by plaintiff.— Tizzard v. Timaru. Fish Company, Limited, claim' .£4B, wages for -eight months as seaman on board the cutter Hero. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, Mr White for the defendant Company. It appeared that in June last Captain Benny had engaged plaintiff at £6 per month. When the vessel lay dismasted in Akaroa Harbour after the accident (the circumstances of which have already been narrated), plaintiff remained by the vessel, from which he had never been discharged or paid off. He had sustained bodily injuries, and he was for a long time without food other than«?*aussels and such articles as were given him. He had never received more than £1 on account. The evidence of plaintiff was borne out by the statement of the captain. The defendants, however, alleged; that the latter had been given money wherewith to pay off the men, but had failed to do so. The plaintiff's case having closed, Mr White intimated that he was prepared to prove that certain cheques (produced), which had been cashed by the captain, and the proceeds, according to his statement, applied " on the ship's account," had been really given, him to pay wages with. The case having occupied the whole afternoon, was adjourned by his Worship till two o'clock to-morrow.