MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12620, 1 October 1901, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Sept. 30. (Before Mr R. M. Taylor, J.P., Mr W. H. Cooper J.P., and Mr 15.I 5 . M. Stewart, J.P.) - -.,v , Drunkenness. —A first offender was fined 6s and costs.—Robert Stott was remanded for seven days. Importuning Passengers. —Margaret lies, who was charged with'having-Icdtered in the streets and importuned passers-by, was convicted and discharged, on condition that she went to the Samaritan Home. By-law Case.— Thomas Smith was fined 10s and costs for having driven at other than a walking pace across the intersection of Colombo and Hereford Streets. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) .. Default Cases.— ln the following cases, judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default:—W. Strange and Go. v. G. H. Smith, claim £2 Os 8d; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v. Peter Smith, £2O 7s ; Sawtell and Wachsmann v. W. J. Boyd, £6 5s ; Trades Auxiliary Company of New Zealand v. Charles Allen, £5 6s; C. Pannel v., T. Smith, £1 16s fid. ■ A Judgment.— Mr Bishop gave judgment in the case Charles Purdie (Mr Malley) v. H. 0. Hargreaves (Mr Joynt). The claim was for £ls Is fid, as damages because of failure of defendant to comply -with an agreement to lease a house for two years from plaintiff. The defendant had occupied the house for seven months, from March, 1899. The case hung upon the point of whether the document creating the tenancy was an agreement to lease or not. Mr Bishop said that it had been agreed that the document was an agreement to lease, and defendant was bound by it; but it was ; contended that it was merely an agreement? for a two years’ tenancy, and therefore vji||/ under the provisions of “The Property Law Consolidation, Act,” except as creating a monthly tenancy. There was no doubt whatever that this was the correct view. ' Judgment would be for the defendant, with costs.

Experts Disagree. —ln the case William Crichton (Mr Joynt) v. Margaret Cronin (Mr Russell), claim £SO, evidence was called as to the handwriting in- the letters upon which the case hung. Charios Edgar, called by Mr Joynt, stated that in his opinion the letters were signed by the same person. James M’Gfegor Lloyd,, called by Mr Russell, said he . did not think 1 that the letters were all signed’ by the same person. John Cronin, son of the defendant, stated that he wrote the first three letters, by his father’s direction, in Ms, mother’s absence. The Magistrate dictated portions of on’e of the Tetters to him, and ho wrote it exactly as in the original. Mr Bishop said that with this fresh evidence before Mm, he would give judgment- for the defendant with costs. A Contract Dispute. —John C. Green (Mr Stringer) claimed £lO6 9s lOd from Jacob Osborn© (Mr Russell), as -balance due upon a building contract. Green had contracted to build a house for Osborne, but the contract was afterwards altered in several particulars, and the claim was for extra labour and material. The claim was considered in detail, and a quantity of evidence given. Finally the parties agreed to compromise at £BO and costs. Mr Bishop, therefore, gave judgment for the plaintiff for £BO aed costs. A counter claim for £57 was dismissed.

A Missing Heifer.— Timothy. Hanlon (Mr Russell) claimed £8 10s.from Alfred Horne (Mr Johnston). Plaintiff was a farmer, living at- Bromley, and two years ago he bred a red heifer. An attempt to brand it- failed owing to it breaking away when only slightly touched by the iron. Later he took the' 5 animal down to the Maori Reserve, at Lyttelton, to run, and saw it there several times until he missed it early in April of this year. Hoime had been constantly down at Lyttelton, and from information ’received, Hanlon went to 1 his place at Woodend, where he saw his calf. He claimed it, and after some dispute Horne first offered to buy it ,and then told plaintiff to take it. Finally it was’agreed that the? heifer should be sent down to the Addington Yards with some Other cattle on the following Wednesday. It did nob'turn up, however, and further negotiation:!) had no more satisfactory result. The, claim was for the value of the calf, and for expenses in connection with it. Evidence was given, by the plaintiff, his son, James Smith and the Maori owners of the Reserve at Lyttelton. The defence was that the heifer in Horne’s possession- was his own property, and-bred by him. A quantity of evidence was given centring round 1 the fact that a slight scar had been discovered on the heifer on the spot where Hanlon ha-d stated he had attempted to brand it. Several witnesses said i-.at the scar was a narrow scratch, not such as a branding iron would make. Mr Bishop held that plaintiff had fairly . proved the ownership of ths heifer. Judgment would -be for the plaintiff for the value of the animal, £4, and £1 damages, with costs. -

■ A Cabman’s Claim.— Philip Kelly, a cab driver, claimed 16s from C. E. Hoddin'ott for cab hire. After hearing evidence, Mr Bishop gave judgment for the plaintiff for 5s and costs. KAIAPOI. Monday, Sept. 30. (Before Mr Feldwict, J.P., and Mr Hansen, J.P.) Assault. —John. Driscoll, for assault, was convicted and discharged, and a prohibition order was issued against him. . A cross summons against two young men for assault was dismissed.