MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 11052, 2 September 1896, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

, CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, Sept. 1. (Before Mr G. G. Stead, J.P., Mr J. B. Sim, Mr W. Samuels, J.P., and Mr S Lawrence, J.P.) Drunkenness.— A first offender was fined 5s and costs.—Neils Ludeoig, alias Ludivig, was fined 10s and costs, or twentyfour hours’ imprisonment.—AnniejMurdoch, alias Perry, an old offender, was fined 20s and costs, or forty-eight hours. (Before Mr R. Beetham, S.M., and Mr S. Lawrence, J.P.) Affiliation. —Robert Washington was adjudged to be the father of an illegitimate child, and was ordered to pay 5s a week towards its support, the costs of confinement, and was ordered to find a surety of £SO for compliance with the order, in default six months’ imprisonment. Civil Cases. —Judgment was given for plaintiffs, by default, with costs, in the following cases: —W. Hawkens. v. R, Stewart, claim £45 15s; W. T. Robinson v. E. Nesbitt, £lO 15s 9d; Brockley Co-operative Coal Company v. R. E. Small, £3; same r. J. S. Little, £1 4s; same v. J. Maddern, 15s.—In the case of J. Allen v. Mrs J. Blyth, claim £lO, judgment was given

for the plaintiff by admission. Brockloy Co-operative Coal Company v. Ct. W. K. Hallett, claim £lO 15s, calls and unpaid capital on allotment and second issue shares. Mr Hunt appeared for the plaintiffs, for whom Judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs -£2 6s. The ease of J. E. Dalton v. E. M. Duncan, claim £7 15s Gd, on Judgment summons, was adjourned till Sept. 15. Eichard 'Wright, John Green and John M’Cormick, trustees of the Christchurch Operative Bootmakers’ Society, sued James Heslop for .£l, forty weeks’ subscription to the society at Gd per week. Mr Weston appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Joynt for the defendant. Mr Joynt raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiffs had no - -Tight to sue. The society was registered as an Industrial Union under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1894. Clause h of Sub-section 3 of Section 3, provided that members might be sued for fees or dues by any person or authority empowered by law or by the .rules. He contended that neither the Act nor the rules of the society empowered any person or authority to sue. So far from that Eule 19 provided that a member who was two weeks in arrear with his subscription should be fined, and if after notice he did not pay up his name should be struck off the rolls. 'Mr Weston, in reply, contended that the plaintiffs had power to sue and if it was held that the trustees had not the right, the society would then become the plaintiffs. His Worship said the rules of the society clearly did not contemplate the suing of members; another remedy was provided. Nor did the law give any authority. Mr Weston asked if his Worship held that a rule such as this did away with the common law right to recover. Mr Beetham said he did not go as far as that, but there must be a distinct and specific authority. The rules could be amended to provide for that. The plaintiffs were nonsuited with costs, -63 10s. In a case brought by the same plaintiffs against J. Balfour, to recover £5 fines, the same objection was held to apply, and the plaintiffs were nonsuited with costs, -£1 Is. .. . • • EANGIOEA. Tuesday, Sept. 1. (Before Mr E. R. Good, J.P., and Mr A. Todd, J.P.) Civil Cases. —W. H. Brothers v. James Gdrrie, claim ill Ss 7d; Mr Johnston for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount and costs. —Same v. John Gorrie, claim -68 5s Id. Judgment was given for £6 19s 7d, with costs. AMBERLEY. Tuesday, Sept. 1. • (Before Mr 11. W. Bishop, S.M.) Breaches op the Licensing Acts. — James Dwan, a prohibited person, was chai’ged with having been found on licensed premises, viz., the Crown Hotel, Amberley. The charge was admitted. Accused, on being found in the billiard-room was ejected, and on his return was given in charge by the proprietor of the hotel. Previous convictions having been proved, accused was fined GOs and costs. —Thomas Lascelles, licensee of the Crown Hotel, was||charged with knowingly permitting a prohibited person, viz., James Dwan, on his pi’emises. The evidence as, above showed that ; the licensee . did not knowingly admit the prohibited person, and the case was dismissed. — H. Murfit, a prohibited person, was charged with having been found on licensed premises, viz., the Railway Hotel, Amberley. The evidence showed that accused was unable to get accommodation for the night elsewhere, and was taken in by the licensee of the Railway Hotel, it being wet and rainy. Accused was in bed for ten minutes, when he was ordered to get up and clear, as he was a prohibited person. He accordingly dressed, and was ejected into the street. He had no drink "at the hotel. A fine of 20s and costs was inflicted. — Patrick D. Hoare, licensee of the Railway Hotel, Amberley, was charged with knowingly allowing H. Murfit, a prohibited pei’son, on his premises. On hearing the evidence the Magistrate dismissed the case.