MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 9120, 4 June 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTCHUKCH. Tuesday, June 3. (Before H. Thomson and F.. Trent, Esqa.) Dbunkennrss, —Elizabeth Cronin alias Mary Ann M'Kenna, and Beatrice Warren, were charged, on the information of Constable Donohue with being drunk and behaving in a riotous manner in Manchester street South on the previous evening. The evidence of Mr M’Lean, the arresting constable, and Sergeant Keating being taken, the Bench sentenced the accused to seven days’ imprisonment. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M., E. Westenra and H. J. Hall, Esqs.) Civil Cases. —T. Strange and Co. v. W. Hill, claim £2 Is 3d; judgment for plaintiff by default.—Booth, McDonald and Go. v. W. H. Whyte, claim £9 10s; judgment for plaintiffs by default.—N. Hyslop v. H. B. Moody, claim £4 4a 4d; judgment for plaintiff by default. —Sydenham Borough Council v. Trustees of St Andrew’s Cemetery, claim £l3 3s j adjourned to June 19. Pyne and Co. v. Thomas Holland, claim £22 3s 6d. Mr Deacon, for plaintiffs ; Mr Cresswell, for defendant. The claim was for stock sold to defendant, a butcher, by plaintiffs, a firm of auctioneers. The account was proved by plaintiffs, and counsel for the defence applied for a nonsuit on the grounds that the goods were sold to the lata firm of Holland and Tapley. The plaint only disclosed one defendant, and only one had therefore been served, whereas the goods being sold to a partnership, the remaining partner might have a claim against Tapley for hia share of the account. Mr Deacon replied that as the partners were severally liable, it was not necessary to sue both partners. The Bench reserved its decision.—John Ferguson v. Thomas Holland, claim £32 13s fid. In this case counsel raised the same defence, and decision was reserved.

EANGIOBA. Tuesday, June 3. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M.; A Parsons, and A. Todd, Esqs.) Bbeach of the Slaughteehouse Act.— The hearing of informations laid by the police against G. Cone and H, Cave, butchers, for neglecting to keep a record of cattle slaughtered by them; for failing to furnish a weekly return, and for refusing to produce slaughterhouse books when called upon to do so by the Inspector, came on to-day. Mr Gresson, for defendants, applied for an adjournment, the oases being of soma importance, and he having been instructed only that) morning. Mr Helmore, who appeared ior the- Borough , Council,, did not,

object, and the cases were adjourned for a fortnight, (The Mayor here took his seat on the Bench.)

Civil Cases. —The interpleader case, A. E. Newbury v. W. L. Fowler and S. M. Fowler, was adjourned till Tuesday next to the Christchurch Court.—M. Robertson v. H. M'Gifford, claim £1 2s ; judgment for plaintiff for amount, less Is interest not arranged for.—Eov W. E. Gillam v. Mrs S. F. Brown, claim £3 14s money lent; judgment by default.—A. Ivory v. W. L. Fowler, claim £l6 0s 9d. Mr Spnckman for plaintiff. Mr Helmoro, on behalf of Mr Cohen, who was to have appeared for defendant, applied for an adjournment. Mr Spackman objected, and the Resident Magistrate suggested that an adjournment should be granted if the evidence showed that such was advisable. The evidence for plaintiff was to the effect that in August he obtained judgment against defendant in the Supremo Conrt for £l7l 3s sd. £76 3s 5d of the amount was paid him, and the balance (£OS) was to be met by proceeds from the sale of certain wheat placed in G. King and Co.’s hands for disposal. If the wheat realised more than the sum named defendant was to receive the balance ; and if less, be was to make up the amount. The wheat sold for £B3 19a 3d, and as no settlement had been made by defendant he was now sued for £ll os, 9d, difference between the amount realised by the wheat and £95, and £5 interest, which had been charged at the rate of 8 per cent on the Supreme Court judgment. For the defence, Fowler stated that he had never been supplied with a copy of the account sales for the wheat, aud therefore had not been given an opportunity to settle. The Bench gave judgment for £ll 0s 9d with costs, disallowing the £5 interest.—J. Wheeler v. N. S. Vale, claim £ll2s, for hire of spring cart, detained by defendant. Some time previously plaintiff went for the cart, and defendant pushed him down, breaking his arm, for which ho had to pay damages. Defendant still detained the cart for an amount due for repairs, and plaintiff now sought to regain possession. The Resident Magistrate pointed out that plaintiff should have sued for a return of the cart, and advised him to take out a fresh summons. Defendant informed the Bench that the cart was now distrained on, and would be sold that day.—Blackett and Son v. F. Hill, claim £4 16s, judgment summons. Defendant having agreed to pay £1 per month, the case was allowed to staud over. ASHBURTON. Tuesday, June 3. (Before W. J. Steward and A. Harrison, Esqs.) Assault. —James Gill was charged with having assaulted John Henry Leek, an old man of seventy-six, at the Commercial Hotel, on the night of Saturday, May 31. The evidence showed the assault to have been of a most brutal and unprovoked character, and accused was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour. TIMAKU. Tuesday, June 3. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases.— Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—W. Ogilvie v. A. B. Waugh, claim 9s 6d; New Zealand Clothing Factory Company v. A. B. Waugh, claim £2 7s 6d.—T. Mahan, captain of the barquentine Jessie, v. A. White, coal merchant, claim £3 7s, balance of freight due on a cargo of coal brought from Newcastle in March last. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr Hay for defendant. There was also a cross summons for £1 13s for coal short delivered. The case was adjourned for a fortnight.—Fraser v. Rutherford Bros., and Rutherford Bros. v. Fraser. His Worship gave judgment in this case. The facts of the case seemed to he that plaintiff, Fraser, was engaged by the year at £l2O a year and found, and served three years and three weeks. After looking up the cases quoted, he came to the conclusion that plaintiff did not come within the rule as to menial or domestic servants, and the contract therefore could not be determined by a month’s notice, or one month’s wages in lieu of notice. Judgment would be given for plaintiff Fraser for £3O 15s with costa £5 2s, and for Rutherford Bros, for £1 10s and costs £l. .