MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12539, 28 June 1901, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, June 27,

(Before Mr J. C. Sopp, J.P., Mr W. Samuels, J.P., and Mr S. Lawrence,

ir.p.) Drunkenness. — A Qrst offender was fined 6a and costs, in default twentyfour hours’ imprisonment.—Daniel Crawford. Michael Shea, and Jeremiah O’Connor were each fined 10s and costs, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop S.M.) Default Oases. —ln the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default Margaret Mansfield v. Thomas Phillips, £4 3s 6d; City Council v. James Hislop, £2 17s 9d; H. F. Fuhrmann v. A.’ M. Loasby, £6; same v. W. Pitcairn. £2 10s • same v. W. J. Hoddinott, £2 13s; same v. H. H. Ellis, £2; same v. David Patrick, £2 9s 4d • City Council v. Mrs B. Denihan, £2 15s; Robert M’Dougall v. Mary Halliday, £4 3s Id; F. P. Pannell v. J. F. Smither, £5 3s; W. A. Gray y. J. Everest, £6 6s 6d; R. M. Aitken v. Lawrence Ooglo, £2O; Anglo-New Zealand Cycle Company v. E. C. Hooper, £lO 14s lid; Wardell Bros. y. Samuel Jones, £22 14s; E. 0. Hawkes v. J. Percival, £1 17s lid.—ln the case of G. L. Beath and 00. (Mr Francis) v. Miss L. Stewart (Mr Loughrey), dairo £2 7s 9d, the judgment debtor proved inability to pay, and no. order was made—The judgment debtor also appeared in' the case C. G. Fryer (Mr Leathern) v, Charles H. Preeoe' (Mr Anstead), and no order was mlade.-—Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the case 0. G. Fryer (Mr Malley) v. William Maun, claim £2 10s. —Daniel Smith (Mr Joynt) sued William Hartshorn (Mr Hunt) for £l3 4s, for having broken in a mare, grazed a foal, etc. A counter claim was put in to cover the claim, but Mr Bishop disallowed it, and gave, judgment for the plaintiff for £8 and costs.

An Unfinished Case. —Sydney Smith (Mr Byrne) claimed £26 13s 6d from Lucy Flavell (Mr Joynt). The plaintiff had become engaged to the. defendant some time ago at Lincoln., and until recently had. consistently made her presents and paid various accounts on her behalf. A quarrel took place, the defendant’s parents not liking .their prospective son-in-law, and finally the engagement was broken off. The plaintiff now wanted all his money and presents back. He gave evidence at-great length, attributing . his somewhat erratic memory to the worry the girl had occasioned him. After Mr Byrne had closed his case, Mr Bishop adjourned the further hearing until Thursday next. ' '