MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3364, 15 January 1884, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—THIS DAY. (Before W. C. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and T. W. Hall, Esq. tJNVACCINATED CHILDREN. J. B. Moles was summoned for having two children nnvaccinated. Defendant admitted that one child was unvacoioated, but said the other had been vaccinated by a Mrs Holdgate. Dr Hogg had merely certified that the child’s arm bore a mark that oeemed like a vaccination-mark. The Vaccination Inspector (Mr C. E. Cooper) said the proof appeared to him very unsatisfactory, and he pressed for the infliction of a nominal penalty. Defendant was fined 10s for his neglect in the first instance, the cage of the other child being dismissed.

John Mann wos summoned for having two children unvaccinated. Mr Cooper proved the neglect to comply with the Act. Defendant said he had just had the children vaccinated, though ha had always strongly objected to vaccination. The case was adjourned for a week,to enable defendant to produce the medical certificates. James Black for having one child unvaccinated, was fined 20s and costs. assault. W. M. Hadfield was charged with assaulting T. H. Wigley at Opahu Station, on 4th inst. Mr White appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Hamersley for the defendant. This was a re-opened case. The sam6' charge had been previously dismissed in the absence of the prosecutor. Mr Hamersley submitted that the discharge of defendant last week was tantamount to dismissal of the information, and urged that the case could not now be proceeded with. He quoted authorities in support of his contention. Mr White, for plaintiff, contested the point, submitting that the case had not been dismissed on its merits, but simply because of the absence of the prosecutor, which ho could show was unavoidable. After further argument His Worship adjourned the case to Friday next, when ho would be prepared to decide whether to give a certificate of complete ucquittal or to hear the case. CIVIL CASES. In the case W. C. Beswick v. T. McOlatchie, in which judgment had been given for' the plaintiff at last week’s sitting of the Court, Mr Hamersley, for defendant, applied for a re-hearing. Mr Knubley, for plaintiff, opposed, and the application was dismissed. In the following cases, judgment was given for plaintiffs for amount claimed and costs:—A. St. G. Hamersley v. T. Hampson, claim £2 8s ; Same v. M. Scollard, claim £3 16s fid; McOaa and Moore v. S. Bamsbottom, claim £1 18s 9d ; W. McKeown v. Emma Hope, claim £4O; John Jackson v. James Stewart, claim £2 fis; R. Stansell v. Maurice Chilton, claim £36 3s fid. J. J. Daily v. John Thompson, claim £5 15s. Judgment summons. Defendant was ordered to pay off the amount by weekly instalments of 5s from February 15—in 14 days’ imprisonment. Lowe v. W. Collins, claim £2 5. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant. In this case plaintiff had previously sued for £7 fis for damages to a trap, and hire of a horse and trap pending the repair of such damages. The £5 of this claim had been abandoned at a previous hearing, and plaintiff now sued for £2 fis, the amount paid for use of a horse and trap during the progress of the repairs. The question now arose; whether, in case of a collision of two traps through accident, without wilfulness, the hire of a trap, while the injured one was undergoing repairs, could be recovered. Mr Hamersley quoted largely from “ Addison on Torts,” to show that such claim was recoverable, while Mr White arged contra. His Worship gave judgment for defendant with costs. A. St. G. Hamersley v. Massey, claim £2 7s 2d. The defendant asserted that he knew nothing of the matter, and the case was adjourned till Friday, to give plaintiff the opportunity of producing evidence, J. Mcßobbie v. W. A. Hobbs, claim £1 15s 3d, for work and labor done. Plaintiff had paid £l 4s into Court. : Judgment was given for plaintiff for £1 7s 3d and costs.