MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9513, 8 September 1891, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Sept, 7.

(Before J. P. Jameson and F. J. Kimbell, Esqs.)

Assault.—Susan Malcolm appeared on remand, charged with assaulting William Parkes. The complainant made a long and inaudible statement, and showed his head bandaged up. Dr Ovenden said the complainant had come to his house on Friday suffering from a broken head. The wounds were on the top of the, head, and could not have been inflicted through an ordinary push. There was no sign of erysipelas now. The accused made a statement to the effect that she had done some washing for the complainant, who refused to pay her and became abusive to her. She pushed him away. Constable Dillon proved that when he and Detective Benjamin were searching her house the accused was very violent and said she would split complainant's head open, and made other threats. The Bench fined her £l,- and ordered her to pay medical expenses. Drunkenness. Sabina Murphy was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment.

The Confidence Thick.—Wm. Wilson, a man who Chief Detective O’Connor stated was one of a gang of “ Sydney magsmen,” was charged with stealing .£3O from Andrew M’Phorson, at Lyttelton, on Sept. 1, by means of imposition and representing that he was a fellow traveller on the Waihora. Mr T. S. Weston, with him Mr H. W. Weston,appeared for the accused. Chief Detective O’Connor applied for a remand fora week to secure two accomplices. After a long statement made by the prosecutor and an appeal from the solicitor, the Bench considered there was not sufficient to warrant them in detaining the accused, and he was dismissed. Uttering Counterfeit Coin.— John William Jackson pleaded “Guilty” to a charge of uttering a counterfeit coin to Mrs Sarah Hickmott, on Sept. 2. The Chief Detective applied for a remand for a week, and said that the accused had taken other sixpences to jewellers to be gilded after the word sixpence had been scratched out. The remand was granted. (Before E. Boetham, Esq., E.M.)

Civil Cases. —Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the case Drapery Importing Company v, Landergan, claim £9 Is lOd.—The case D.I.C. v. Richards, claim .£3 4s lid, was adjourned to Sept. 14.—J. M. Eeid v. Ward and Co., Limited, claim £ll9 17s sd. Mr Byrne for the plaintiff, Mr Beswick for the defendant Company. Plaintiff was recently in the occupation of the Garrick Hotel, the property of the defendants. About July 6, last, plaintiff, failing to obtain a transfer of the license from one M'Gill, entered into negotiations through bis parents and Mr J. C. Martin, his solicitor, with Ward and Co. for the Hotel to bo given up to the owners. , Eeid lost £si 3a 6d, Mr Martin stated, in his connection with the Garrick. The furniture was valued at £llO when taken over by the Reids, and was secured by a bill of sale to the Company. ■ When Reicbwas leaving, he thought the ;.a great deal more., It was; ultimately agreed that the Keids were to have the furniture and to take sip the-billa of'£llo, and phy Ward and - Co." £3 4s 6d, as a balance agreed upon, Reid to give up the hotel after the sale. , In cross-examination, Mr Martin said that , he did not ..know that Eeid, had got double credit for £SO, Andrew Eeid, father of the plaintiff: Agreed to pay Ward and Co. £3O when his son went into the hotel, taking up M‘Gill's bond to Ward and Co. M'Gill, ho understood, owed Ward and Co. £B9 for rentand beer, and £llO for furniture. His son was to pay £39 13s by bills at three and four months, and to pay £SO in cash when, he went into the hotel. When the negotiations were made for his son going out, Fletcher, Humphreys and Co.’s account was to be paid by Ward and Co. Witness afterwards paid £ll3 4s lid in the terms of the agreement. Fletcher, Humphreys and Go. were suing his eon for the amount of the account then claimed. Mr Beswick applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that plaintiff was not damnified until the account was paid. He quoted the case Crampton v. Walker, L.J. Reports, Vol. XXX., Q.8.D., Vol. 19. By consent the case went on. For the defence, George Harris, solicitor, said that the con was the actual plaintiff. M'Gill owed £lB9 to Ward and Co., when plaintiff took the place. It included £l6O for furniture, Efdd was to pay £lB9 13s to go into the place. £SO in cash and the balance in bills. After a series of negotiations, on July 6, the balance of £3 4s 6d was agreed upon as tbat between the parties on which plaintiff should go out of the place. On that date he told them that Ward and Co. were prepared to lose £2O to get the Reids out of the place, but, as a matter of fact, it cost him a great deal more. There was no agreement as to the indemnification of plaintiff against the present claim. Mr Byrne, for plaintiff, put in a receipt for j the account paid to Fletcher, Humphreys | and Co. Judgment for plaintiff for £l7 Gs 2d and costs.-Fleahbourne v. Jewitt, claim £7 3s Gel. Mr Salter for plaintiff. Mr Cresswell for defendant. Plaintiff claimed for goods said to be in the possession of defendant. After hearing evidence for the 1 defence, showing that some of the things

had been given by plaintiff to defendant’s friends, and that the remainder of them were, worn out and of little value, judgment was given for the defendant, each side to pay its own costs.—-In the cases Pascoe v. Cooper, claim £SO, judgment was given for plaintiff for JBI4 17s 6d. and in Sopp v. Columbus, claim £2 went for plaintiff for the amount" of claim and costs.

KAIAPOI. Monday, Sept. 7. , (Before Captain Preece, R.M., E. Blakeley and G. H. Blackwell, Esqs.) Maintenance.— ln the adjourned case against Hopera Uru, who was sued for the maintenance of an illegitimate child, of which he was the father, the Bench now gave its decision, which was to the effect that the Act under which the claim was brought was not in force in the Kaiapoi district. In consequence the case was dismissed.

Civil Cases.—P. M'Swceney v. E. Eice, claim .£l7 8s 9d. Mr Leathern appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Helmore for defendant. A contra account for the amount of £l2 10s 2d was admitted, and judgment was given for plaintiff for the balance, defendant to pay coats.