MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVII, Issue 12850, 24 June 1902, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday; Juste 23. (Before Mr W. B. Clarkson, J.P., and Mr J. Hamilton, J.P.) Deunkenness.—For this offence, two first offenders, who did not appear, were each fined 10s and costs.—A first offender, a woman, had a. situation to go to, and the Bench-convicted and discharged her, on condition that she came up for sentence when called upon. (Before Mr R. Beet-ham, S.M.) Default Case.—ln the case of the Commissioners' Flat Gold Dredging Company (Mr Williams) v. John Staines, a claim for £37 10s, the defendant failed to appear, and judgment for the amount claimed with costs was given for the plaintiff by default. A Disputed .Liability.—The Drapery Importing Company ('Mr Izard) claimed from C. A. Lees (Mr Harper) £ls 10s sd, the value of certain goods sold to Mrs Lees, and delivered .at the house of the defendant. The plaintiff's counsel stated that Mr and Mrs Lees had 'had an account at the D.I.C. for. the past eighteen years, vnd that Mr Lees had 'been" in the habit of ikying for goods ordered' 'by his wife for :ie household use. Some time ago the cities but the D.I.C. was not :i formed of the-,;,* fact. The defendant tated that he -Had always allowed his wife in ample income for the maintenance of the ::ouse, and the debt in dispute was concracted while he was away in Australia. Mr Harper addressed the Court at some 'pngth, quoting numerous cases in support oi his contention that the defendant was not. liable. Mr Izard replied, also quoting nithorities, and his Worship reserved judgment, ' y A Damaged Haystack.—'Walter Rownfree sued Twentyman Hodgson for the sum : of £l7, the vailue of a stack. of hay. "Mr Hunt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cresswell for the defendant. The plaintiffs story was that, .in April, 1900, he rented a paddock from a #lr 'M'Alpine, and reaped a crop of hay from it. The hay was stacked in another.paddock, with Mr M'Alpine's consent, and it was arranged that the stack should stand there. In April, 1901, M'Alpine let the paddock to a man named Beadel', avHo siVb-leb it to the defendant. The latter turned forty horses into the paddock, and they eventually ' destroyed the si-aok.' There was a .fence round the : stack, but. this was removed without the plaintiff's 'authority. Tor the defence, it was alleged that the fence Tound the stack was a ve>ry weak one. One night the horses became entangled in it, and pulled it down in their struggles to get free. Hi|) Worship said that it was for the plaintiff "to see 'that his- stack was properly fenced. The evidence showed that it was not, and he imust, therefore, take the consequences. Judgment would be for the defendant, with'costs. The, Value of a Govt.— Joseph Harrison (Mr Russell) sued Herman Ellmers (Mr Harper) for the sum of £B. The plaintiff stated tliat on May 21 he bought at the Aldington Yards a cow put-up for sale by the defendant. Tho cow. was bought as sound in every way, but when plaintiff took hen 'home he found that she was suffering from a serious defect'. For the defence, it was alleged that the cow's defect did not depreciate her value, and that she was sold merely as sound in the quarters, not as sound in every way. After hearing the evidence, his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.