MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 8336, 25 November 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, Nov. 24. (Before John Ollivier, Esq., K.M., and E. Westenra, Esq.) Failing to Provide. —James M'Master was charged with failing to provide for his four children at Woolston, who were left without adequate means of support. Mr Escott said that when the man handed his children over to the Charitable Aid Board in 1884, he agreed to pay 16s per week. This he had failed to do, and there was now a large sum owing—-£2so—for the maintenance of tbe children. Mr Pender reported that he had been locked up several times for drunkenness during the time that the children had been at tbe Orphanage. Accused said he was unable to get work. Ordered to pay 10s a week, commencing in fourteen days from date, or to appear before Court to show cause why he did not do so. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. —Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default with costs in the following casesßecks v. Standridge, claim JE6 7s 8d; Vincent and Co. v. Sutherland, claim -HI ‘7los; Aulsebrool: v. Adams, claim JEIO 12s; Parker and Tribe v Spurr, claim .£6 4s; Goodman v. Marsh, claim .£3l Is.—Burton v. Parkes was adjourned until Dec. I.—Branaghan v. Russell, claim -SlO 9s 9d, wages due. Mr Beattie for the plaintiff; Mr Russell for the defendant. The plaintiff, a youth, stated, on August 14 he entered the defendant’s employ as commercial traveller, at wages of JCI a week and found. The defendant hawked drapery, &c., about the country, and plaintiff used to pack and do anything he was told. After being in defendauts’s employ for seven weeks without receiving any money, he asked for a settlement, and signed a paper without reading its contents, which were in the nature of a settlement between the parties up to date. The plaintiff further stated that he only received i!l by cheque and a pair of boots and cigars. On Nov. Bhe left defendant’s employ, andclaimed wages up to that date. The defence was that .£2 19s 6d was paid in settlement of tho claim up to Oct 1, when the plaintiff left defendant’s employ according to the evidence of the latter. The defendent further swore that the wages were 12s 6d and not £1 a week as stated by the plaintiff. Mr Russell put the receipt in, which was found to be unstamped. It was ordered to be sent to the Stamp office. The defendant’s housekeeper gave corroborative evidence, and judgment was given for the defendant with costs. —Askey r. Morton, claim X 7 19s Gd, balance for furniture. Mr Izard for defendant. The plaintiff stated he sold certain furniture at valuation price to the plaintiff, and that the amount sued for was the balance (the document containing the valuation was hero put in, and found to be unstamped.) Mr Beetham said the case would fall to the ground unless the document was stamped. He advised tho plaintiff to take some advice in the matter. The plaintiff then consented to a nonsuit.