MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12569, 2 August 1901, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

- ' --* ' '■■ CHRISTCHURCH. ' Tttlvhsdav, August 1. (Before Mr R. M. Taylor, J.P., and Mr J. M. Thompson, J.P.) 1 Drunkenness.—Three first offenders, were each fined 5s and costs, hi default twenty-four hours' imprisonment.—August Wilson and William Thomas Whiteman were each fined. 10s and costs, in default fortv-e.io-ht hours', and Christina Lawson was" fined 20? and ccsts, in default three days' imprisonment.' (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, b.M.) Det-u-lt Cases.—ln the following cases, /judgment was given, for the plaintiffs by default:-!?. ' 'C. Raphael v. Patrick M'Grath, claim £4; "Press" Company v. Arthur Bailey, £3 12s 6d ; same v. W. O. Jones, £2 6s 6d; Hopkins and Co. y. 0. J. Schcfield, £3 6s 4d; Jemima Taylor y, M.O'Malley, £3 lis; Adams Star Cycle Company t. H. Henderson, £l6 2s A Non-suit GRANTEB.-When the case H. Matson and Co. (Mr Russell) v. John Moore (Mr .Bvrnc), claim £37 3s was called, Mr Russell said that he would app.y for a nonsuit. The claim had been for commission. Moore had instructed the plaintiffs to sell-a-property, for him before » certain date. The plainUto introduced a buyer, but .no sale was effected before,the expiration of the time limit fixzd by. Moore. Later the buyer made the purchase from Moore, and Matson and .Co, .claimed their commission. . Mr Russell quoted from the I-- Sports just received, a similar case in" which Mr Justice Williams had ruled against the plaintiff, and sakl.tnftt, -under the circumstances, .he would apply for K nonsuit, Mr, Bishop grunted ihe .nonsuit, with-costs .to the defendant... . , A Solicitor's Claim.—Jeanneth Hard(Mr Bruges), sued B. S. Irwin (Mr Cttssidv) for £5 4s. The. defendant,. who did-not appear., was a, Dunedin solicitor. 'He-v... admitted having received £5 ,on plaintiff's , account, as a legacy, but: put in- a -counterclaim- for '£7 18s 4d, part, as h<« bill for tmwork done, and part for previous work done ■: for plaintiff's husband. Ihe plaintiff and her husband stated that defendant lrad promised to do, the work for nothing Mr Bishop gave judgment for the plaintiff for £5 4s on the claim, and judgment for the defendant for £5 4s on his counter-claim.