MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXV, Issue 7864, 20 May 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, May 19. efore R. Westenra, C. R. BlaMston, and H. J. Hall, Esqs.) Drunkenness. —Three first offenders ire fined 5s each, with the usual altemare of 24 hours’ imprisonment for drunkenss.

Beeaeing into and Stealing. —George x, a lad of 15, was charged with break--15 into and stealing from the dwelling of fred C. Josling, on or about April 12, Is . in coppers, two stirrup leathers value s, a gold ring value £l, and a boot value 5. Mr Josling stated that on returning me on the day in question he found that e house had been broken into, and the ings specified stolen. Entrance had been ‘ected by a window which was closed with a cfc. Witness identified a book produced, a py of “ Our First Century/ 5 as one that he id missed, stating that a leaf with his name i it had been tom out. Henry Large, a d of seventeen, deposed that on April 12 e accused had sold the book produced to Mr Wheatley for Is 6d in money and a oemaker’s rule. Previous to taking it to r, Wheatley's shop, he tore out a leaf ith a name on it. Eobert Bradshaw, a >y twelve years old, stated that he saw the :cused enter Josling 5 s house by the window, etective E. Neil deposed that he had arsted the accused, who stated that a boy imed Eainbow had lent him the book, ainbow, however, denied having done so. i reply to the Bench, the accused denied lat he had taken anything from Mr fling's house. His mother, who was in ourt, stated that his father was dead, and iat he was not a very good boy. Dr ymes informed the Court that the family ad been very well brought up, with the rception of the accused, who appeared to e beyond control. He had been in his Dr Symes') employ, and was a good boy uough when looked after. It would, he lought, be a great pity to send him to gaol. Iv Josling, recalled, said that he missed ie stirrup-leathers and the ring some time Eter the house had been broken into. The oy Eainbow, who had previously been in

Mr Josling’s employ, deposed that he had not lent the book to the accused, who had been in the habit of going into the house with him. The house was not properly locked up when it was left. Mr Westenra told the accused that the Bench did not wish to send him to gaol. There was no evidence of his having taken the gold ring or the stirrup leathers, but there was n« doubt that he had taken the book. If he ever took anything else that did not belong to him he would be sent to gaol. The Bench would merely order a conviction to be entered against him, and let him go. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M., and E. Westenra, Esq.) CIVIL CASES.

St Albans Borough Council v. The Avon Eoad Board. —Claim .£47 14s 7d, being part cost of the maintenance of May's road, on the boundary of the two districts. Mr Holmes for plaintiff; Mr Kippenberger for defendant. The case had been heard on May 11, when His Worship reserved his decision. In giving judgment, Mr Beetham said: “.There are three points involved in this case. First, as to the form of the plaint (that the Chairman of the Board should have been sued, and not the inhabitants of the Eoad District), that I have amended. Secondly, as to the power of the Church Property Trustees to dedicate the land for a road: I think the power possessed by the Trustees enabled them to dedicate the land for this purpose, and that they were acting within the scope of their trust in doing so. Thirdly, as to thequestion of construction. It appeared that the road was formed in 1881, and then allowed to become to all intents and purposes, as far as traffic was concerned, impassable. In 1884 the road was re-formed and metalled with shingle; and it was a portion of the expenses of this latter work which the plaintiff sought to recover. I look upon this work as “ construction,” and not " maintenance,” for which alone defendant would be liable. Judgment for defendant. Mr Loughrey (who was present) gave notice of appeal. His Worship remarked that the question was purely one of law npon the facts as he found them. He did not think the Public Works Act of 1885, relied on by Mr Holmes, came in. Costs and solicitor’s fee were allowed. Miscellaneous. —Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the cases of HaUenstein Bros. v. Day, claim £3 13s ; Black, Beattie and Co. v. Amy, claim £l7 6s 9d, and. King v. Barrett, claim £1 16s 9d.—ln Boulton v, Monaghan, claim 10s, there was no appearance of plaintiff, and Mr Loughrey, for defendant, obtained an order for solicitor’s fee and costs.—Percy v. Ayres, and Booth, Macdonald and Co. v. Harris were adjourned to May 26. LTTTELTON. Wednesday, May 19. (Before J. OUivier, Esq., E.M., and E. Ticehurst, Esq.) Drunkenness.— Thomas Mattensen was fined only 5s for his third offence within one month, on account of his leaving the country. Numerous Larcenies. —George Miller, alias Charles Miller, alias Duffey, late cook and steward of the Clio, was charged with stealing a suit of clothes valued at £2 14s, the property of Thomas Olman, of the barque William Turner. He was also charged with stealing a coat, value £2 ss, the property of John Fleming, of the same vessel. The same man was charged with stealing a suit of oilskins, valued at 18s, and a pair of sea boots, worth £1 ss, the property of Olaf Johnson, also of the William Turner. He was further charged with the larceny of a suit of clothes valued at £4, and a hat worth Bs, the property of Hugh Tracey, of the barque Norman M'Leod; also, with stealing a silver watch worth .£4 10s, a silver guard valued at <£2 10s, and 5s in silver, the property of Thomas Norris of the barque G. M. Tucker.' Prisoner pleaded guilty to all the charges with the exception of that from the Norman M’Leod. Sergeant-Major Mason said he would withdraw that case. He said that prisoner was doing six months for larceny, and had undergone three years imprisonment in Adelaide, and was wanted there for other offences. Detective O’Connor said he found tbe watch in Lezard’s pawn-shop, in Christchurch, where it had been placed on the 26th of last month, by a man who gave the name of Charles Duffey. Prisoner admitted being the man. He had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in Christchurch, for larceny, last Monday. Constable M’Cormick said the man was cook and steward on the Clio, schooner, laying astern of the Q. M. Tucker.’ Prisoner had gone aboard the latter craft, and taken a watch hanging within six inches of the head of the mate, who was asleep. The Bench sentenced the accused to three months' hard labour on each of the first three charges, and to six months on the fifth; the sentences to be cumulative. Prisoner was then remanded to Christchurch to answer to a charge of housebreaking. By-laws. —For allowing horses or cattle to wander the following fines were inflicted;—James Matthews was fined 10s and costs; Thomas Newton, fined 5s and costs; Samuel Hall, fined 5s and costs; Thomas Thomas, 10s and costs; Hugh. Manson, 5s aud coats. TEMUKA. ■Wednesday, May 19. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., 8.M.) Breach op Slaughtering Act.—Geraldine.County Council v. William Oldfield. Mr Eaymond appeared for the County Council, and Mr Aspinall for the defendant. This was a case brought under section 22 of “ The Slaughtering Act, 1877,” whereby any person not holding a proper license is debarred, under certain penalties, from slaughtering and selling beyond a given number of sheep per week. It was shown by defendant’s own evidence and that of F. W. Stubbs, Clerk to the County Council, that defendant, being tbe bolder of a 10s slaughtering license (which only permits the, holder to kill ten sheep per week), had killed and sold over and above that quantity. The County Council, through their solicitor, desired to press for a heavy penalty, but this being a first offence. His Worship inflicted a fine of 20s and costs. Cruelty to Animals. —Thomas Parke was charged with neglecting to supply a certain horse with food and water on May 10 and: 11. A. W. Aulderton, station master at Temuka, gave evidence to the effect that he noticed a horse in the Eailway stock yard on the afternoon of May 10. The following morning it was still there, and he sent it to the pound and informed the police. The horse was there some 16 or 18 hours. Fined 20s and costs. Civil Cases. —Judgment hy default was given in the following cases ; —Norton v. M'Kaye, claim .£9 14s 7d; Norton v. M'Master, claim £2 6s Id; J. Beri v. Cope (Maori), claim £2 3s 6d.—Disputed wages: Thomas Eadford v. Caleb Bateman; claim £ll, balance of wages. Mr A. St G. Hamersley for plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed that he engaged to cook for defendant, who is a mill owner, through the threshing season, at the current wages, viz., £2 per week. Defendant had paid him at the rate of £1 per week, and he now sued for the balance. For the defence, it was stated that it was thoroughly understood that the wages were to be £1 per week. Judgment for amount claimed and coats. Wrongful DismissalA. J. T. Hornbrook v. A. M. Clark, claim £l, in lieu of usual notice. Mr Tosswill for plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he had been dismissed without notice and without any reason being assigned for his dismissal. The evidence of A. M. Clark and his overseer (J. M’Coll) was to the effect that plaintiff, who had been, employed as a shepherd on the Arowhenua Estate, had neglected his work, and had also committed a breach of duty in shooting npon the estate, thereby disturbing the

sheep, &c; hence his dismissal. After going through the evidence, his Worship gave judgment for the defendant.—Wearing Bros. v. Siegert and Fauvel, claim <£9o Os 6d, for pigs sold and delivered. Some of the circumstances in this case being previously known to his Worship, he decided not to sit, and it was arranged that the case be transferred to the Geraldine Court, the fees already incurred to be remitted.