MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9760, 24 June 1892, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTCHUECH; THURSDAY, JUNE 23. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Drunkenness.-— lsabella Lee was fined 10s, in default, forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. Industrial Schools Act. George Harper was charged with neglecting to provide for the maintenance of hia two children in the Burnham Industral School. The defendant did not appear, and an order was made for him to pay 6s a week for each of them, in default, three months’ imprisonment. Maintenance, —ln the adjourned case of Martha Largo v. Ernest Clark, the Bench made an order; for 7s 6d a week. Petition Case.— The argument in the Avon Eoad Board petition case was further adjourned till 2 p.m. on Monday next. Civil Cases, —ln the following cases judgment was recorded for the plaintiffs by default, viz.:—Fletcher, Humphreys and Co. v. J. Tennant, £ls 9s 3d; J. Keogh v, A. Hawkins, Bs,—The case of E. J. Waleii v. H. P. Peel, a judgment summons, was adjourned till June 30.—Fenwick and Fenwick v. Allan Hopkins, claim £l6 i 11s. Mr Bruges for plaintiff; Mr Kippenberger for defendant. In this case defendant had raised a loan for plaintiffs, and had deducted the amount claimed for commission and charges. Plaintiffs now sought a refund. The Bench said the plaintiffs were bound to pay something for the procuring of the money, which had been obtained by mortgage and security on chattels, and it was undoubtedly necessary that those chattels should be verified / Still the charges were high, and he would reduce them to one guinea for the visits to Waikari, and to 2\ instead of 5 per cent for the commission, thus reducing the amount by . £6 18s, for which judgment was • given for plaintiffs. —C. H. Mason v. D. Griffiths, claim, £2 11s 6d, for work done to a house in Chester street, Mr Bruges for plaintiff, Mr Cresswell for defendant. The amount in dispute was for some repairs to the house, which repairs plaintiff claimed were not included in a contract, and which defendant alleged were so included. The Magistrate said that it would have been much better to have had the work appraised, but as it was the plaintiff would be nonsuited, as the weight of evidence was in favour of the defendant’s contention that plaintiff had not completed his contract. . -