MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15558, 7 March 1911, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, March G. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.)

Drunkenness. —William Vincent, a probationer from the Rotoroa Inebriates’ Home, pleaded guilty to a charge of having been drunk. He was remanded for a weed; in order that the Minister might be communicated with regarding his return to the Home.—Victor George Gardiner, a second offender, who did not appear, was charged with drunkenness. Sub-In-spector M’Grath said that the man was suffering from bronchitis and had been found in a creek in liagley Park. He was in the Hospital. Accused was remanded for one week. Found by Night. —Robert Forrest Vallance, who appeared to be very bad from tbe effects of drink, was charged with helpless drunkenness and with being a rogue and vagabond in that lie was found on the premises of William Rouse on March 4. He was remanded for a week for medical treatment. — Robert George Yellop, charged with having been found on March 4 on the premises of John Creevy, said that he had had the owner’s permission. A week’s remand to enable the police to bring evidence was granted. By Default. —ln the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs by default for the amounts claimed with costs:—Booth, Macdonald and Co. (Mr Wilding) v. C. Fisher, £2 Mis Gd; Brown Bros. (Mr Cowlishaw) v. A. Forsyth, £5 10s od; F. D. Kcstcven (Mr Rowe) v. Mrs E. R. Beard, £53 10s; Prichard and Harvey (Mr Rowe) v. T. Borrow, £2 14s 3d; same v. E. J. L© Breton, £4 ISs: R. T. Leathern (Mr Rowe) v. J. Reid. £22; W. J. A. Clay (Mr Cunningham) v. JM’Leod, £154 16s; W. Robinson and Son (Mr Rowe) v. H. Telford. 19s Cd ; Ridley end Company. Limited (Mr L. Hopkins) v. M. J. Ryan, £ll 6s; A. F. Donogliue (Mr Cuningham) v. G. J. Sellars, £s' ss; Oates and Co. v. Miller Bros., £l9 16s; A. L. Ross (Mr Hunt) v. A. 0. Wood. £2 Is 3d; S. Manning and Company, Limited (Mr Cowlishaw) v. William Humphries. £SO 18s: W. Moor and Co. (Mr Williams) v. J. L. Radcliffe, £32 7s sd; E. Britt (Mr Rowe) v. Mrs J. Fraser, £1 12s 6d. Judgment Summons Cases. —Mrs F. Tulet-t (Mr Cun in glia m) claimed £9 10s from William Sullivan, under a judgment summons. An owlcr was made that the amount should bo paid at the rate of 2s per week, in default ten days’ imprisonment.—W. H. Cook was ordered to pay J. Lamb and Son (Mr Rowe) £2 17s 6d at the rate of 5s per month, or go to gaol for throe, days.— No orders wore made in the cases H. and M. Tnglis (Mr Rowe) v. J. B. Chick, £3 8s fid. and M. Brown (Mr Rowe) v. D. M’Auliffe, £3 Os Bd. For Defendant. —ln a claim bv Robert Geddis for £3 2s fid from W. C. T. Hooper over an order for chaff, judgment was given for defendant. A Shearing Case.— W. F. Aplin claimed £2 10s from George Gould (Mr Wilding), wages for wool-rolling. Plaintiff gave evidence that he had an agreement to class wool at defendant’s station and to roll it. also at an extra remuneration. He did not receive the money he was entitled to, amounting to £2 10s. For the defence it was stated that Aplin had been engaged with a proviso that he should receive more money for rolling, but a wool-roller had been employed, and the work, plain tiff had done was the ordinary am Sunt of rolling undertaken by a wool-t-Csser. ’Hie Magistrate held that oW,ig to the loose arrangement between the parties he could not say that the plaintiff was entitled to anything extra. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs.