MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8124, 22 March 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday,. March 211. (Before J. 'V. Ross, A.. G. Howland, and Frederick Hobbs, Esq?.) DfiUNEKHNBBS.—James W. Cotton wasfined 20s for being drunk while in chargeof a horse and cab.—Albert Hawkin, who. had been drunk in charge of. a horse and vehicle at Papanui, was fined 10a. Mary Ann Douglas, a very old offender, was sent to. gaol for a month for drunkenness.—Mary Ann Wadsworth, another old offender, who had made use of disgusting language while drunk, was fined 10a S»r drunkenness and sentenced to a' week’simprisonment for the obscene language.— Thomas Gettrick and S> B. Bourdot were fined 10aElizabeth Bennetts, ss; ; and. a. first offender 5a for drunkenness. Indkcbmcy.— Henry Large and Hugh Burnsides, two lads about seventeen and fifteen years of age, admitted having been guilty of this offence on. the bank of the river Avon. Inspector Bender stated that the accused had' been bathing, near, the Carlton bridge about three o’clock on Sunday afternoon,, andi had been, running about the hank naked; in the sight of. passers-by. A constable in plain clothes, who was present, couldi prove that ladies were passing at the time. The Bench finecLtha lads 5s each, and cautioned them, that a. repetition of the offence would befollowed by more severe punishment. (Before R. Beetham, Esq*, E.M.) IsTBSPLEADEBSi—P.. Henley v. Annie Brandt (Mr Izard). John IMton v. Anaie Brandt (Mr Weston). Samuel Early, v. Annie Brandt (Mr Deacon); S. Chapman v. Annie Brandt (Mr Deacon). Claimant in. each case, Henry Harrison (Mr M'Conuel). Mr M'Conneksaid the defendant was the widow of ono Conrad Brandt, farmers,, who died on June 22, 1883. The will was proved on August 7,1883. Henry Harrison was the executor of the will, and the claimant in each, case of the goods, seized under each distress. Harrison claimed sundry cattle and two horses, besides household furniture, of which a, list was read in Court. Mr Deacon abandoned all claim to these goods, and asked for costs against the claimant. A note- of the request for costs was made by the Bench. Mr M £ Connel read the will, fey which the farm and goods were bequeathed to Conrad Brandt, jun. Harry Harrison said he was one of the executors of the will. Mrs Brandt, under the will, was allowed the use of the farm so long as she remained single. He took it that if any of the cattle died or were sold they were to be replaced by Mrs Brandt. To Mr laard t Mrs Brandt kept no account. She proved for the children, and paid the interest on the . mortgage. The farm was 100 acres, and was mortgaged for j£soo. To Mr Weston s Two of the horses and two of the cattle that were on the place when the man died were now there. Could swear to the horses, but not to the cows. The horses were worth about J6lB. The cattle now on the place, were, he supposed, the natural increase. Mr Izard argued that though Harrison was executor for the will, he was not young Brandt’s guardian, nor the Trustee of the estate. Mr Weston said a trustee should be appointed by the Supreme Court. Harrison’s office ceased when he paid the debts under the will. Mr M'Connel said the boy was fifteen years old. If she married before six years had expired she would have to pay 18s per acre per annum rent to her son through Harrison, who was therefore constituted trustee as well as executor of the will. He argued that it lay on the. other side to prove that-the cattle were not those he claimed. The Bench would make an order. The only two things to be exempted would be the

two horses identified. Costs would be allowed to the three solicitors. . KAIAPOI. Monday, Mabch 21. (Before Caleb Whitefoord, Esq,, E M., and i l>r Giles, E.M., Qreymouth.) Breach of the Fishbeibs Act.—F, East and H. East were charged with unlawfully netting fish in the Waimakariri on March 2. Mr T. G. Eussell appeared for the defendants. Mr Spackman, for the prosecution, pointed out that the Governor, by an order made in Council and gazetted on Dec. 16 last, had prohibited fishing with nets in all the Canterbury rivers north of the Eangitata. He asked that the case against H. East might be taken first. H. East was then charged with fishing with nets within prohibited waters, to wit, the Waimakariri. Sergeant McDonald, called, deposed that on the night of March 2 he found accused taking fish out of nets, set in the Waimakariri, near the mouth of the Styx. On being charged with the offence, he said the nets were the property of his brother Fred. Accused was in a boat, which he said was his brother’s. Took boat, nets and fish away. To Mr Eussell: H. East said the nets and boats were his brother’s property. Met his brother coming down the river later on, who admitted that the property seized was his, but stated that he had told his brother, when leaving in the morning, not to set the nets on any account. Constable Cartmill stated he was present when the seizure was made, and gave corroborative evidence.-r-F, East was then charged with illegally fishing in proclaimed waters, and similar evidence was adduced. An attempt was made on the part of the prosecution to prove that, the | boy East could not have set the nets without the assistance of his Brother, but was not sustained. — For the defence, H. East deposed:. The nets belong to my brother Fred. I set. them by myself, against the expressed wishes of my brother, and in his absence. Mr T. G. Eussell argued that there was no case against F. East. He was no doubt the owner of the property, seized, but as in the case of Newman, v. Jones, it had been decided that a master could not be held liable for the actions of a servant, when such actions were in direct contravention to his instructions. He maintained that accused could not be held liable for his brother’s actions, nor should the property be confiscated. Mr Spackman said he did not press for any heavy penalty, nor would he insist on the confiscation of the property. This actionwas taken more to show fishermen that the intention was in future to enforce the law. The Bench said the information against F. East would be dismissed; that against H. East had been proved, and the Bench were determined to inflict such a- penalty as would act as a warning to fishermen in the future. Plenty of publicity had been given, 'and fishermen were well aware that net fishing was illegal. If they persisted in [ breaking the laws they must put up with the ■ consequences. Accused would be fined £S [and costs of Court, and the nets would be I confiscated. On the application of Mr [Bussell accused was allowed a fortnight to !pay the fine. 1 Civil. Cases. —W.. Howes'v. B. Jones, I claim 11s 3d. This was a claim for the i value of five ducks, the property of plaintiff, alleged to have been wrongfully kept by ‘defendant. Mr M. Nalder appeared for [plaintiff ; Mr Spackman for defendant. [Several witnesses were called on both sides, [and.the evidence generally was of a most 1 conflicting nature, and provocative of much [amusement when the attempt was made to identify the casus, belli. The Bench ;finally gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs of Court, witnesses’ expenses,. and [solicitor’s fee.-*—Judgments by default were ■given in the following cases: —F; Egan v. ; Thompson, claim .£44 1;. J; Whitehead v. H. Ihpmpson, claim 10a 9d. | TIMABH, | Monday-, March 21. I (Before J. S. Beswicb, Esq., E.M.) t False Pjbetencks; —Henry W. Andrews, ! for obtaining by false pretences from. : Drummond and Glasaon, drapers, on March., ;4>i certain goods valued at £3 Is 6d and ■3a 6d cash, was sent to.gaol for a month,, [and ordered to pay the money.