MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 9430, 3 June 1891, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, June 2. (Before R. Beetham, Eaq„ EM.)

Civil Cases. —Judgment was given for pb -.tiffs by default in the following casesSydenham Borough Council v. Gray, £2 2s 5d ; Same v. Lilly, <6l 6s 9d; Taylor y. Williams, £llsa Id; Harris v. White £5 7a 6d. Stranagaa v. Ferguson, ill 19s. Judgment summons. No appearance of debtor, who was ordered to pay debt and costs forthwith, or go to gaol for a week.—Sydenham Borough Council v. Gorman, £1 16a sd, for rates. The claim was admitted, and judgment was given for plaintiff for amount of claim and costs.— Pope v. Innes, £7 Is 10d; adjourned to June 16.—The Farmers’ Union Grain, Produce and Finance Company v. Durey, £2} adjourned to June 4.—-Same v. Dale, £i; adjourned to June 4.—Hulbort v. Knight; adjourned to June 23. —King and Co. v. Mardon, claim .£SO 7s 4d. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Russell for defendant. Plaintiffs claimed for balance of cost on a shipment of sixty-one bales of flax tow shipped for defendant by plaintiffs, in 1689, first to Sydney and then to London. The total amount of the claim was £lO6 5i Id, of which £6 5s Id was abandoned to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court, and credit given for £49 12s Bd, value of the stuff sold, bringing it down to the amount sued for. for Mardon in shipping flax, and was told by him to arrange with King and Co. to obtain freight for the tow to Sydney. Some time afterwards Mardon told him to get the stuff sent on to London, as it did not sell in Sydney, and he wanted to realise. King ultimately rendered account sales to witness, deducting the amount of the loss from money due him for grain. Mardon objected to pay; but said that if it had been about £3l he would have paid it. He had since become a shareholder in King and Co. Cross-examined: Mardon never told him to get the stuff destroyed at Sydney at any cost. George King: Shipped the flax as they considered on ivory’s account; understanding that it was prepared by Mardon. Ivory instructed them to ship it to London. Mardon came to their office several times, asking for the account sales from London. The stuff was not dumped. After the loss was ascertained Mardou said it was a pity it had been sent to London. —. M‘Rae gave corroborative evidence. W. Mardon, the defendant, in evidence, said that he knew the expenses would accumulate on the stuff, which was sent to Sydney as an experiment. He never told Ivory to send the stuff to London, but told both King and M‘Eae to have the tow destroyed in Sydney. He knew that it was bringing only about £7 per ton in London. He afterwards understood that the loss was only about £2B, and as he was good friends with Ivory, he said he would help him out with it. Cross-examined; It was five or six months after the stuff was in Sydney that he ordered it to be destroyed. He did not say anything when he was told that it had been sent to London, as he considered that plaintiffs had done it on their own account. Judgment for plaintiffs for amount of claim and costs.

LYTTELTON. Tuesday, June 2,

(Before H. Allwright and J. B. Milsom

Esqs.)

Larceny.— Edward Coates was charged with the larceny of an overcoat, valued at £2, the property of Mr J. T. Brice. Accused pleaded “Not Guilty.” J. T. Brice identified the coat as his property. It had a capo on when it was taken from the shop on Monday afternoon. Constable Bloasei gave evidence to arresting the accused, who was wearing the overcoat, and said first that ho had purchased it in Australia, and then that he had given some tobacco in exchange for it. Accused was sent to gaol for one month.

EANGIOEA. Tuesday, June 2.

(Before H. S. Wardell, Esq., E.M., 3. R, Good, A. Todd and W. Buss, Esqs.)

Civil Cases. —W. Vaughan v. Philips, claim £3 fis. Amount paid but not expenses. The summons had not been served, therefore no order could be made for payment of expenses. —Same v. W, Poster, £l9 13s 4d ; adjourned.—W. H. Spackraan v. F. Busch, claim £5 fis 4d for professional services ; £1 7a Sdpaid into Court, but not accepted. The charges were for appearing for Mr Busch on two occasions in an action taken against him by one Gibbs, and for making arrangements to obtain a loan for defendant, also for preparing mortgage deeds in connection therewith. Plaintiff stated that Gibbs' case was struck out on the first hearing, and, on a fresh summons being taken out, Mr Wynn-Williamn appeared in place of witness. In respect to the mortgage business, plaintiff stated that on Nov. 24, 1889, defendant instructed him to procure a loan of £IOOO. On Dec. 3 they went into the whole question, and fixed the costs of the mortgage at £6 15s. On Deo. 17 witness wrote to defendant, telling him that ho had procured the advance, and asking whether he should prepare the mortgage deed. Did not receive a reply, but wont on with the work. On Dec. 24 he saw defendant, who said he had changed his mind about the loan and would not take the money. F. Busch, for the defence, stated that plaintiff agreed to conduct the case with Gibbs for £1 Is, and he (defendant) was averse to the case being struck out on a technical point raised by Mr Spaekman, bub the latter said that he would put Gibbs to all the trouble possible so that if ho won he would not get anything out of the case. In respect to the loan, he noticed an advertisement in the Lyttelton Times offering money at 5 per cent, and he asked Mr Spaekman to make inquiries about it, as bis son would probably need an advance. Ho gave no instructions to have the advance arranged for. The letters Mr Spaekman wrote were delivered at Eangiors while witness was at Southbridge, hence the reason why no replies were forwarded. On learning from Mr Spaekman that he had prepared the mortgage deeds,he told him that ho had not instructed him to do so, and that he did not require the loan. The money could not be obtained at 5 per cent. Plaintiff told him that he had £llOO

to lend for a client, bub witness did not agree to take it, he not having seen his son. The amount paid into Court was £1 la for appearing in Gibbs* case and 6s 8d for enquiring respecting the money offered at 5 per cent. . Judgment was given for plaintiff for £3 7s Bd, the Resident Magistrate holding that as Sections 139 and 140 of the Resident Magistrates’ Act provided that a solicitor who had acted, for plaintiff or defendant in. Court must deliver a bill of costs to his client within seven days after appearing, failing, which ho could not recover the amount in Court,. • plaintiff's claim in respect to his services in Gibba’ case could not be allowed.

ASHBURTON- • ' Tuesday, June 2. ; (Before A. Harrison, Esq.) Obscene Language. —William Beatty was sent to gaol for fourteen days for having used obscene language in a public street whilst drunk.