MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9650, 16 February 1892, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Feb. 15. (Before M. Harris and H. J. Hall, Esqs.) Drunkenness. —A man who had not been- before the Court for a number of years was fined 4s and costs. —Edward Stevens, for drunkenness and indecency, was fined 10a, and sent to gaol for one month. —Christina Lawson was fined 40a, and Margaret Webster 20s for drunkenness. ’ An Unmanly Act.— Charles Fisher was charged ; with using obscene language, and behaving in an insulting manner before some ladies on the Papanni tramway, on the ,night 6£ Jan. 30. Defendant , was standing oh the rear platform of the hindmost car, when some ladies' attempted to get on to’ the tram. He did not move out of the way, and one of the ladies bumped her head against the tram stairs. When remonstrated with by one of the passengers defendant used the language complained of. The guard coming up at that time, requested the defendant to go either on top of or inside the tram, and defendant again declined to move, whereupon he was forcibly ejected from the car by tbe guard. Defendant denied using any bad language, or that he was able to get out of the way when asked to do so. He also pleaded extreme provocation in the guard’s manner to him. The defendant was fined £5 and costs, the Bench remarking that it was quite time ladies who travelled on care should be protected from such people. (Before R. Beetbam, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases. —Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases: Farmers Union, Grain, Produce and Finance Company v. A. Carey, £1 15s; same v. J. Bligb, £3; same v. James Farrar, .£3 ; same v. G. E. Taylor, £3 ; Johanna O’Neill v. R. M'Giliivray, £5. The following cases were adjourned: Farmers Union, Grain, Produce and Finance Company v. W. Walsh, £1 Iss, to Feb. 22; same v. John Quidall, ,£1 15s, to Feb. 22; same v. D. Healey, ,£1 15s, to Feb. 22 ; M'Connell and Douglas v. A. Lilly, 16s 4d, to Feb. 23. In the case. Farmers Union, Grain, Produce and Finance Company v. H. Benning, £1 las, judgment went for plaintiff, for amount of claim and coats.—William Scott v. George Scott, claim £IOO. Mr T. S. Weston for plaintiff; Mr Stringer for defendant. The claim was for money paid by plaintiff to his uncle, the defendant. The section was subdivided into three pieces, and was at one time in the hands of plaintiff’s father; and the defendant guaranteed and provided certain moneys for the purpose of allowing tho property to remain in the plaintiff’s family. The mortgage was, during 1881, reduced from £450 to £4OO, The plaintiff agreed to become a purchaser of the vacant third of the ground, and financial arrangements were entered into concerning that portion and the whole of the property, whereby, so the defendant said, the plaintiff was to taka over the property and become responsible for the mortgage money. By consent a nonsuit was entered against the plaintiff.