MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12532, 20 June 1901, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTCHUEOH. Wednesday,' Jttne 19. (Before Captain M'Clatchie, J.P., and Mr S., LaTvronca, J.P.) DRxmKENNESS.-rMiohael. O'Shea was fined 10s, amid costs, in default forty-tight hours' imprisonment. A'Remand.—Albert Dyer, charged with having wilfully damaged a door-panel, on June 18, wa« remanded until „uly 21.. ■ Bt-iaw .Oases. —WiUiam iilingworth was fined- 5s and costs for having' driven two head of cattle loose along Stanmore Road between 8.30 a.m.' and 5 f 3Q p.m.—Benjamin Drury was charged with having plied for hire without a license for himself and his vehicle. Be was convicted on both charges, and ordered to pay 28a costs.— J Walter Vallance, for having plied for hire without a license, was fitted 20s and costs. 'A KtriSANCE.—Michael Hoga>h was alleged to have allowed his premised in Tu&m Street to become a .nuisance. Evidence showed that he had kept a miscellaneous assortment of noisome live-stock, upon a wry small emotion, and the x>enoh inflicted a fine of 20s and costs.—Henry Taylor (Mr Harper) was charged by the City Surveyor (Mr Fisher) with having dug up a portion of Manchester Street without a permit on May 4. The defendant had dug up the footpath to put a drain pipe down for the new building .next the Union Steamship Company's'office. He alleged that he had paid for a permit, and produced a'receipt, though, owing to the carelessness of the Council authorities, no permit had been given. There was a second charge against him of having removed a culvert and some pitchers, the property of the City Council, on the same occasion. A quantity of evidence was given, and finally the Bench decided that the defendant had received permission to d;.g up the road, and that the removal of the culvert, etc., was a matter for a civil action. Judgment was given' for the defendant, with cost*, on the first charge, and Mr Fisher withdrew the second ■ charge. Prohibition Orders.—One applicationfor a prohibition order against a man by his wife was refused, and a " counter action" was adjourned until June 25. ■ LYTTELTON. Wednesday, June 19. (Before Mr H-. W. Bishop, S.M.) Case Struck Out.—C. T. Dalley v. W. H. Dalley. In this case the plaintiff sought an-order to compel the defendant, his father, to deliver up possession of certain property situated near Go-Han's Road, Lyttelton. Mr. Brown appeared for plaintiff and Mr Johnston for defendant. The latter: raised the point that the Court had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as a question of title was concerned and the amount involved, was over £2OO. He stated! that about twelve : years ago the plaintiff and defendant arranged for the purchase of certain property in the son's name. There was, however, an arrangement between them that it:should' belong to bojth. . The son worked, for the father, who was a ■blacksmith, till about three years ago. The defendant occupied part of the property, built a house thereon with liis own* money, and provided money to build onie for has son. The defendant gave evidence as to the -arrangement, and statedl that ho valued the land occupied by him' and) the house thereon at £3OO. He denied that he had been in financial difficulties when the arrangement was made. G. A. Lewin, Lyttelton, borough valuer, estimated the value of the land, half an acre,' and the house thereon, at from £220 to £230. The land alone would be worth £6O to £7O. C. E. Rowe, land agent, valued' the property in question at £215. William Hollis, builder, eatimated the land ageing worth £75 and the house £l5O to, £160: John R. Jones, Government valuer, deposed that he had valued the house at £l9O, and the land at £4O -thr*© years ago. Land had since risen in value. Mr Brown- said that in. face of the evidenoe as> to value now brought forward he could , not persevere with the case, whidh- was ajccordingly ;stru-ck out for want of jurisdiction of the Court.