MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXV, Issue 7863, 19 May 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTGHURck Tuesday, May .8. (Before E. Beetham, Fq., R.M.) Drunkenness. Maraget Thompson was convicted for this offejßt, and fined £2 or three days’ imprisoJßcnt. Isabella Leckie, George Frame, gKa woman not i previously convicted, wefljjpih fined 10s or forty-eight hours’ in.prisoui»ient. A Larcenous Butcher-Boy. — William. Mulligan, a butcher-boy, aged 15, wis charged with stealing meat value 16s, on April 21; with the larceny as a bail# of meat value 14s on April 1; and embezzling 2s, the property of T. W. Gunnell, his employer. The system the boy pursued was to sell meat, which he represented he had supplied to customers to be booked, and to pocket the proceeds. He had slso committed embezzlement by retaining money he should have paid over to his master. When in Court, the accused expressed great contrition, and said the money had gone in the purchase of cigars and other luxuries, which he had shared amongst his mates. The Bench considered the matter altogether too serious to .be treated lightly, and sentenced the boy to seven days’ imprisonment on each charge—twenty-one days in all. Civil Casks.— Pascoe v. Ulrich, claim .£39 11s bd on a dishonoured promissory note. Mr Raphael fey plaintiff ; Mr Weston for defendant. The case had been heard previously, and the claim was founded upon a promise to pay the amount made after defendant had been adjudicated a bankrupt. IJlis Worship now gave judgment, holding that defendant had made an unconditional and complete .promise to pay after bis adjudication, and had therefore revived the debt. Judgment forplaintiff with costs.- Mrs Wilson v. Parsons, claim £3lss, in lieu,of wages, the 'amount plaintiff alleged defendant had agreed to pay her tor services as nurse. Mr Byrne for defendant. Plaintiff failed to prove the contract, and judgment was given for defendant with ?ostq’r-Reid v. Williams, claim 15s, for on# •lf' f nas domestic service. It appeared that mentl been offered and refused, and judgcosts was given for the amount without alld .—Robins v. Read, claim .£2 5s for board Jjudfiodging. Mr Weston for defendant. a ;ment for 15s and costs. —Judgment c/isfgiveu for plaintiff by default in the 13 ? of Hyslop and Co. v. Kennedy, claim jjfipSd.—ln G. L. Beath and Co. v. Mullins, Llm £S 12s 6d, Mr Weston, for plaintiff, fjud that he had been consulted since the (pjion was brought, and had advised that j could not recover without the jidence of Mr Beath, who was absent in England. He therefore accepted a nonsuit, r ith costs.—De La Mare v. Pope was .djourned to May 25. EANQIOEA. I , Tuesday, Mat 18. (Before A. H. Cunningham, A Parsons, and H. Boyd, Eaqs.) Civil Cases. —W Isitt v. M. J. Crothers and COi, claim £3. Plaintiff did not appear. Mr Crothers stated thattheamount claimed was an overcharge on an account, and he was prepared to dispute it. He asked for. expenses for attendance, and was allowed ss.—James Kearney v. Patrick O’Connell, claim £5 10s. Mr Gresson for defendant. This claim was for half value of a roller bought as a partnership transaction between the litigants. Plaintiff stated that the implement was bought for ,£lO. and £1 had been paid for repairs. He paid defendant £5 10a as his share of the coat, and it was agreed that if at any time the roller was sold the proceeds 1 should be equally divided. Defendant was now in possession of the roller, and as he . would not sell it, witness claimed his share of the costa. Defendant’s evidence was to the effect that plaintiff had paid only £3los, and he was quite willing to sell the roller and give him his share of tha proceeds-in proportion to that amount. Mr Gresson contended that as the transacf.on was a partnership one, the Bench must grant a nonsuit. The Bench, after advising the parties to sell the implement and divide the proceeds, dismissed thei case, each side to pay its own costs. LYTTELTON. Tuesday, Mat 18. (Before T. H. Potts, W. B. Toss will, E. Tbehurst, Knight, Esqs.) Labceit. —A man named William J. Deare wis charged with stealing the sum of £1 fr<m one J. W. Watts, at Lyttelton. After Inuring the evidence the Bench dismissed she case.—Robert Lorrimer was charged with the larceny of a Cardigan jacket md a suit of oilskins, valued at 295, the property of Louis Blohm. The case was prved, and the prisoner sent to gaol for twe months, with hard labour. i. ; KAIAPOI. Monday, Mat 17. (Befoa Caleb Whitefoord, Esq., E.M.) Eeq itbation —Mr T. Gallagher was charge* with neglecting to register the birth o his infant som Defendant, who admitte the offence, was ordered to register the bM at once, andpay the costs of the Court. * (Beforethe Mayor and G, H. Blackwell, Esq.) Laeohy. A youth named William [ EicharJ was brought up in the custody 1 of the dice charged with the larceny of a | pair of oots, the property of William LipsI combe. Mr M. Nalder, instructed by the I police, -oaecuted. The prisoner, who gave I his ages 16 years, made a most ingenious I statemet, in which he said he found the I Lboots ia hedge, but eventually admitted VpHft. It appeared from the evidence his gu them to Belfast, where that hi hem to'one of the employees there he sold After a severe lecture from the for 4a, In which they pointed out that Bench, but his youth prevented them nothinjhdLng him to gaol for a term ofi from Snment, and regretting that theyj impris* jit order him a severe flogging, a| could Jin was entered against him, and hel to he locked up until 5 p.m. | was" or( j ASHBUETON. [ i Tuesday, Mat 18. i IH.C. S. Baddeley, Esq., E.M.) I (Befog,—William Smith, an old toper,; Dbum 20s, or 48 hours. A prohibitions was fina still in force against Smith, order war.—James Scott, caretaker at the LabcA was charged with the larceny racecouilns* stuff to the value of 18s, the of publwtf E. J. Whittle, of the Commerproperty , The property was stolen from cial Hot iment booth on the course. Mr the refre f Timaru, appeared for the White, rho pleaded guilty to the theft, accused, jtrate commented on the serious The Mag the case, and sentenced Scott, nature o ,id, should rather have been the who, he s than the thief of racecourse protector to 21 days in gaol. Another property,/ larceny—of a saddle—against charge o,postponed till Friday next. Scott wa=Eighteen residents, the owners Doos.-ine unregistered dogs, were fined, of thirty-, at 1 the rate of 10s per dog. with cost GERALDINE. J Monday, Mat 17. .. ; the Rev G. Barclay and E. H. (Be/'" Postlethvaite, Esq.) u Cases. —E. H. Pearpoint v. EdCrvireen, claim £9 5s 7d, judgment sumward Q Defendant was ordered to pay onemons. ,e amount in a month and the rehalf th- in six weeks; in default, to go to maindea, fortnight.—Same v. A. O wles, claim gaol for i, judgment summons. Defendant £6 2s sqom Akaroa, stating that he was wrote fo pay the amount, and requesting unable 'rt to deal leniently with him. Dethe Cou v?as ordered to pay £1 a month, or fendant-isoued for a fortnight. John be impiv, Robert Bennett, claim £4, on an Charles judgment for plaintiff, execution to I 0 U; jhmediatelv.—G. Wood v. J. D. follow ifiaim £6 10a. Defendant did not Fraser, cAs some portion of the evidence appear, j

taken at/ Palmerston North, was the casta Vaa adjourned to next Court day/ '—Thofmas Tilson v. James Joe, claim £l2|| A set/off for groomage was not judgment for plaintiff. M TIMARU. |f Tuesday, Mat 18. ijV ' (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., E.M., and I® W. Hall, Esq.) ( Drunkenness. — T. Townsend -was fin€|| 5s for this offence. J i • Assault. —E. Casswell v. P. Beale. M ; Raymond for the plaintiff; Mr Hamerslej • for the defendant. This case arose out ej ? a neighbours’ quarrel, and judgment hat ? been given against plaintiff on last Court I day during his absence, and 23s cost | allowed to defendant, but his Worship ha® granted a re-hearing, and the case was now? dismissed, and the former order for 23si costs rescinded. | Civil Cases. —Coy and Drummond v| Foley ; claim, £2 11s 3d. Adjourned fori five weeks. —Duffell v. Simmons, claim £59s. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff and Mr ■Raymond for the defendant. The case had been adjourned from a former Court day, to allow time for his Worship to consider it, as a point of law had been raised, viz., that of jurisdiction. His Worship now gave judgment for plaintiff with costs, £2 17s. — 1 Canterbury Farmers’ Association v. England; claim JES 4s 2d. Adjourned for seven days.—J. A. Quelch v. M. Hope ; ■ claim £2 10s Id. Judgment by default.— r Salek v. Fruhauf, claim £6 10a. Mr Toss- ’ will for plaintiff; Mr Perry for defendant. This case arose out of the pawning of some watches by one Stevens, and the tickets, falling into the hands of plaintiff, he demanded the watches, and offered to pay what was due on them to the defendant, but was unable to get them, and the sum now claimed was for damage for loss of the watches. His Worship ordered that watches should be given to plaintiff on his payment of the money due on them and five months’ interest, the defendant to pay costs and solicitors’ fee.