MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9495, 18 August 1891, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, August 17. rj£ (Before E. Westenra, J. Bowman, and N. K. Bowden, Esqrs.) Drunkenness. — A fir si; offender was fined sb. —Thomas Makiniai, on remand for medical treatment, was brought up cured, and was fined 5s and ordered to pay 20s gaol expenses. Larceny. —William Warner, alias Alfred Godfrey, on remand, was charged with the larceny of an overcoat, value £3 15a, the property of Charles Walsh, on August 8; also, with stealing a ham valuo 83, and a stable fork valuo 4?,, the property of W. H. Marloy, on August 9. Accused pleaded “ Guilty,” and said he remembered nothing of the offences, which must have been committed while- he was suffering from the effects of drink, Mr Pender eaid the accused had only just come out of gaol, and seemed to be quite incapable of resisting the .drink, as he stole the articles in, question and sold them to second-hand dealers to get liquor with. There was a long list of previous convictions for drunkenness against him, bub latterly he had been convicted of larceny as well. The accused, in reply to the Bench, said he did not know what to do. He should like to go somewhere out of the way of the drink, as he could not keep from it. The Bench sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment on the first and one month on the second charge, the sentences to be cumulative. (Before E. Boetham, Esq.. E.M.) Maintenance. 'Robert Sbace . was charged with failing ■to obey an order of the Court, made on March 10, 1888, to pay 25s a week towards the support of his wife, ’ Maria Staco, and three of his children; the arrears on the order amounting to .£9l ss. Mrs Stace gave evidence that she had been married twenty-two years, and had seven children, and that her eldest son was fifteen years of age.- Beyond the little help she gob from her daughters, she was dependent upon the order _ for her living. Evidence was led, showing that defendant drank; and, after hearing his explanation of the case, the‘Bench sent him to gaol for six months’ hard labour. • Civil Cases.— Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the, following cases:—Dudley v. Kinley, claim £49 5s 9d; judgment for .£34 14s and cpsts;. Farmers’ Union, Grain,. Produce’ and Finance Company v. Moses, £3; same v. Smith, £3 10s; same v. Scarlett, £8 15s; same v. Turpin, £3 10a; same v. Smith, £3 10a; same v. Urquhart, £7; same v. Murphy, £3 10s; Cairns v. Moore, £5 10a.—Farmers’ Union Grain, Produce and Finance Go. v. Harry Bliss, claim £3. Mr Deacon for plaintiff; Mr Salter for defendant. The claim was for calls upon twenty shares in the Company, numbered 3331 to 3350 on the register. L. C. Williams produced the certificate of incorporation of the Company and the share register, in which defendant was described as Harry Bliss, farmer, of Dallington. Witness gave detailed evidence of the dates on which the calls were made and their due dates. He wrote to Bliss on May 18, stating that he would be summoned without further notice if the £4 then due was nob paid within a fixed period. Cross-examined = Defendant’s application for shares was addressed to the Provisional Directors of the Company. Witness could not swear to the signature on the application. George Hutchinson : Filled up the application for defendant’s shares, which must have been signed by defendant. George Y. Hutchinson posted the allotment notice to Bliss on Nov. 21. J. Ferrar : Posted the notice of the call due on Feb. 21 to Bliss. Was certain he did, because he called the notices over with Mr Williams, before they were sent. J. Hill! Gave the notice of the call due March 31 to one Berryman to deliver. He enclosed in the envelope a schedule of the amount owing by Bliss to the Company. This was on or about Feb. 24. Mr Deacon at this point int.iraa.ted that he could not prove the sending of the notice of the call due May 23. Jamas Andrew Berryman : Gave the letter given by' Ferrar to Bliss’ little boy, at Bliss’ door. He also gave the notice of the May 18 call to Bliss himself. Bliss afterwards admitted to him that he had received both these. Mr Salter called ho evidence for the-defence, but quoted she cases of the “National Debentures and Assets Corporation ” (English) and the appeal eases “ In re the Kaiapoi Glass Company,” in support of his argument that, as the memorandum of ' association had nob • been signed by seven persons, the Company had not been properly incorporated. There was also no proof of the date when defendant’s application for shares was signed, though on the other hand there was primd facie evidence that the application was made before the registration of the Company, as the application was addressed to the Provisional Directors. Mr Deacon contended that the Nenthorne Consolidated Goldmiaing Company’s case, N.Z.L.R., vol. 9, overruled the Kaiapoi Glass Company’s case. The Beach eaid that there was no doubt that, in equity, defendant was liable for £4, and judgment would bo given for that amount. Defendant could take the case to the Supreme Court if ho liked.— Same v. Hogan, claim £u. Mr Deacon for plaintiff, Mr Leatham for defendant, who contended that his client had not received the call notices. It was proved that these had been sent, and judgment went for plaintiffs for amount of claim and costs.— Same v. James Hughes, Sen., £2 10s ; and Same v. James Hughes, Jun., £3 10s; judgment went for plaintiffs. KAIAPOI. Monday, August 17. (Before Captain Preece, E.M., and E. Blakeley and J. L. Wilson, Esqs.) Maintenance. —Eiria Peeki v. Hopera Uru. In this case the defendant was charged with neglecting to obey an order of the Court, made some time ago, to pay 3s 6i per week towards the maintenance of his illegitimate child, of which the plaintiff was the mother. It was sought to recover arrears amounting to £ls 11s 6d. Mr Hpban appeared for defendant; Mr Maude for plaintiff. In reply to a request of Mr Maude’s, the Bench granted an adjournment to 12,15 p.m. to enable Captain Preece to get a reply to a telegram from the Minister of Justice. On the Court resuming the Resident Magistrate stated that he had not received the expected telegram, and as ho was not aware whether the Destitute Persons Relief Act was in force in this district with regard to Maoris, he should further adjourn the case for three weeks.