MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 9166, 28 July 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

, OHEISTOHOEOH. Saturday, July 26. (Before R. West'enra and S. D. Barker, Bsqs.) .Drunkenness. —May Mitchell, an apparently incorrigible drunkard, was fined £3, or seven days’ imprisonment,—A man n6t previously convicted was fined ss, or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Many Larcenies.—Ellen Kennedy and Helena Kennedy, her daughter, were charged with stealing a number of articles, as follows(1) Eight handkerchiefs, value 7s lOd; and a tea cosy. Is 6d, the property of Charles Hulston. (2) Six pairs Cashmere stockings, value 9s; and one pair cotton stockings. Is, belonging to T. H. Bone. (3) One roll of holland, value 16a; three caps, 5s 6d; nine pair stockings, 18s; the property of Charles Luxton. (4) Six yards embroidery, value 2s 3d, the property of Arthur Holden. (5) Eleven pairs of socks, value 11s; six yards fur trimmings, £2 Os 6d, from the shop of Lbnargan, M*Clea and Co. All the larcenies were alleged to have taken place on July 25. In answer to the charges, the elder Kennedy said she knew nothing about the matter; her daughter said she “.took fits,” and did not know what she was about. Mrs Kennedy : “ Yes, your Worship, she took fits in the street and was stupid ; that’s where the misfortune comes in with me.” Inspector Pender applied for a remand, as he was not preEared with all his evidence. He said that e believed he would be able to prove all the charges against Mrs Kennedy. Her daughter was acting under the mother’s instructions. The girl was unwell, and he would not oppose her admission to bail. The Bench wished to hear some evidence. G'eorge Bowen stated that ha watched Ellen Kennedy the previous day, and saw her take a roll of holland from Thomas Henry ' Bone’s shop. Her daughter (accused) was with her. Mrs Kennedy: “‘Yea, your Worship, I took it; but my daughter had just taken a fit and clutched at the roll of holland. That’s how it was.” The Bench remanded accused till Tuesday next; bail allowed—Ellen Kennedy, self in.JESO and two sureties of .£25 each; Helena Kennedy in her own recognisances of .£lO. ’ (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) . A Bad Boy.— Henry Rose, a boy twelve years of age, was charged on remand with stealing 8s 6d from the till of Benjamin Berry, butcher, Oxford Terrace, on July 24. He pleaded “ Guilty.” His grandfather said the boy had run away from home last Monday morning. His Worship said this was the second convictionfor stealing against the boy, who was now ordered to receive six strokes with the birch, and then to be sent to Burnham till he was fifteen years of age; to be brought up in the Church, of England religion. ■ CULVERDBN. 1 , ■ Friday, July 25., •(Before Caleb Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) ' Civil, Casus.—Coleman v. Stranaghan, claim J 24 3?, This was an action to repdypr .44 ; 3s paid by the plaintiff to one Robinson, a bailiff in the employ of H. E. B'osrdman; of Christchurch, a bailiff, who bad distressed for rent owing to Mr Stranaghan. The amount of .84s 3sjwas charged for mileage on the distress. The plain! iff deposed that the bailiff distressed upon him for J 619 10s rent owing, and within half an hour he paid out the warrant and was compelled to pay .£4 3s, jibing mileage from Christchurch. The defendant deposed that he never knew anything of the bailiff having charged the sum until he received a letter from Messrs Wynn-Williams and Son, demanding payment. Mr D. Wynn-Williams, who appeared for the plaintiff, contended that the defendant was liable for the illegal act of the bailiff; Mr Russell, who appeared for the defendant, submitted that the defendant could not be liable for the wilful ahd illegal act of Boardman or his servants, except he had given authority to them, or had ratified the illegal pot after

knowledge. The Eesident Magistrate said he would look into the authorities quoted by counsel and give hia judgment later on.— W. S. Smith and Co. v. Amuri County Council, claim .£27 5a 6d. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, who had obtained an order from one R, B, Sibley for this amount on the defendants, who, at the time of the order, were indebted to Sibley. Notice of the order was given to the Council, who now refused to pay the same, upon the ground that they had several orders subsequent to the one of’which notice had been given, and intended to divide the money pro rata amongst them all. They also denied any liability to Sibley, as his contract had not been properly carried out. Mr Stringer quoted Brice v. Bannister in support of his contention that the Council must pay the orders according to their priority; that, therefore, hia client’s claim must be paid before any others of a later date. The B.M. decided to consider his judgment. The Court of Revision on the stockowners’ roll, on which the Hurunui Rabbit Board will strike their rate for the current year, was held.