Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 42, 2 July 1868, Page 3

Magisterial.

9 OIIHISTCHUIIOII. W«WNK(JDAY| iTIJf/V li (Doforo 0. 0. ttowon, ICnq., H.M., W. I). I'auH, Jiflq,, it.M,, find J, Olllvlur, F/Hq.) Dmuonuß oirntn WuioiiTfl and Mioahuhkh Act.— Andrew Wllldu wafl clmrKod on tho information of tlio lnnpcotor of wolKhtn and mcnaiircfi, with having mindry nnHtampud And dcflclcnfc wc-iglits, and gnstaniixid flcalcn

and moasuros, in his possession. 11. Brunadon fluid on tlio 20th of Juno ho found H j unstamped wolghtfl, two thirds of which wero rtlfio dofldontlu weight* ono pull 1 oil unatampod. counter- scales, ono pair of bo im annlon. and four pair of moasuron on ilio dofonuant's prominoa at Lincoln/all of which woro In ijho, Defendant had commenced business ultico tho lufluo M- UiO'(ullv<jrU«o««!Ht respecting tho stamping of weights nixl men/wren/ Illfl pyomluou woro in a vary romoto locality, nrid it wftjj probable that ho bwi not noon tho notioo. Homo oi! tho wolghts boru tho Scotch stamp, and wltnosfl believed fclmt defendant thought that was suflkUiutJ to make them legal In Canterbury. Tlio weales mid moasuros wore all correct; In ■ reply to tlio Honoh dofonilant did nofc deny tho oltonco, but- oald ho wan-Ignorant of doing wrong, Ho thought tho Hootch fUamp wan eulMoitf. Hlfl Wowlilp fluid ho would take lilfl recent commencement In businoAß, and that lio hud ovldontly not commlttod tho pffonco promoditatodly into consideration bo far as being unMnmped was concerned, hut ho could not paw over tho deficiency In tho weight*. For thin ho would bo fined -JOfl, Henry Moffutt pleaded guilty lo having two un»tampod weighing maohlnun in lilb possession and inuso, at tho Lincoln Mill, but pleaded ignorance of tho necessity to have thorn stamped, Tho liiHpMJtor said ho had nofc had tlmo to got tho machines down to Ghristohuroh to bo tofltod, and did not know wliothor tboy wcro corroot. Ilia Worship uaid, as a man of business, ho ought to havo buon cognizant of tho necessity for having them stamped. It was ft very serious matter, and ho was lUblo to loho hln hoalcs. Defendant promised to bo moro oaroful in future, and was fined 10n. omr< qmm, Ann Biionton v. Aonkh llossaok.— Claim of £12, for twolvo weolca' rontof a building in Colombo tnroot, This caso had boon adjournod from tho provioun Thuroday, In order to enable tho plaintiff to obtain legal advice rebooting tlio ngroomont on which tho tenancy wan baaed' and to which Mr Oottrell had then objected ao not bolng logally binding upon tho dofon» dnnt, Tho agrcomont In question w*h ono which had boondmwn up by tho agent letting tlio property, and wan for a term of throe years, at a rent of £02 per annum. Ijofon. daut had loft tho .horn 1 ; beforo the timo had oxplred, in conooquonco of itfi not bolng woathor-proof, and tho amount claimed wan for ront duo up to that date Mr Nottldgo appeared for the plaintiff, and Mt'Cotlroll for tho dofonoo. Mr Nottldgo replied to Mr Cottroll's objection to tho agrcoment, He argued that an agrcomont specifying " torms upon which proporty was lofc or rontod wax a deed, no matter whether It wiifl «l({iiod or dated, or in whatovor form It was drawn up. Ifo oitod C'oko upon Lyttolton, Comyn'n Digest, and Wood fall on tho Law of Landlord and Tenant, In support o£ lite arguments, and to show that Ifi ovon Mr QottroU'fl objection woro allowed, tho plaintiff could still huo for debt for ront. Mr (Jottrell, in roply, contondod that a contraofc In writing might ho a dcod, but a dlmplo agreement for lotting or doing that which according to Mr Notlldgo'fl reading of the law would require a deed, wan certainly not a deed of itsolf, His Worship flaid ho would dofer .judgmont upon tlio first point ratflod,,and bolng of! opinion that a tenancy from year to year had boon ciroftlcfli ho would go into tlio merits oi! tho claim for ront. XQvidonoo wan then adducod on bohalf of tho plaintiff to show that oho had carried out tho agroomont for tlirco yearn, andporformod tho improvements utlpulated therein. On tho part <>£ tho defendant, Hoveral wltnesHon proved that tho hoiiflo was not in ropiilr, and not woathor*proof whon lot. Illfi VVornlilp, in giving judgmont, said ho was qulto natlttilcd that tho house was not in tonantablo repair when lot) a« provided In tho agreement, and therefore bo would givo judgmont for mo and occupation only. Dofenuant had offorod to pay two months' ront, £8, and ho would allow that amount) but no oostst

Wi Hi Ham>y v. Cox and lUmoH.— Claim oil X49 Os fid, balance oC amount for 10$ biiHhols of whoat, at Os por bUßhel. Mb 17fl Ri\ had boon tondorod to tho Court, tho remainder bolng withheld for snokn not returnod. Plalntlfl! provod that ho had tondcrcd tho saokw to dofondantfl, who would not receive thorn, Judgment was glvon for tho full amount claimod, tho saoks to ho re* turned.

Cox and lUiiitn v, W, IX, Haiidy,— This, wait mi nctlon rcimltliiß from tho above, and wan for rccovorlnff £10 damaged alleged to Imvo boon MiHtiilnod by breach of contract for dol lvory of -100 buHlidn of wheat according to fiiimplo. I'laintlffn purchased tho wheat for Gh por bunlicl In March hint, find dofen(knt delivered 106 b««hol«, but not equal to Hutnnlo. On loimiliiK tills, plaintiff wrote to dofondanl tolling him ilioy uouuplod doll vory utulor protOHt. Dofondant thon called at tho fltoro wlion thoy oil'cred him 68 fl'J por btiHhol for tho wheat, but ho fliilmcmtontly wont and sold it oliiowltoro. PlalntiU'n did not toll him to do ho. Tho amount HiKid for In tho praviouH i\a,m wm for tlio 198 liiinliolfl (lolivonul. Kvidonco wao called to provo that tho wheat wuti not according to Hamplo. Dofondant said tho wheat ho had dollrorod wan all that ho had, and that tho contract wan for 400 Ihihlhjlh, moro or lon», Hi« WorHhip flaid oovoral ciihch liad been lnsforo him for broach of! contract, and ho found that groat laxity prevailed in respect to doll vory, hut all appeared to bo for tho quantity Hold, moro or luhh, Ho flhould not iliorcforc admit that point, and ho ooiiHldorcd that, plnliitlfTn liuvlng koiit tho wlioat dofondant had dolivorod, and tondored tho full amount por bimhol Into court negatived any claim for damages Judgment would thoroforo bo Rlvon for defendant with ooMtu.

'I HI! SIJI'JCniNTIBNIMJN I 1 V. H. MOOUU. — Claim of .CiiO log for aoHlfltad pass/iaon from England. Defendant denied having rccoiYOil Government uenhtnnoo, mid the wrong pcvdon having evidently been Htun-

montiod, judgment was recorded for dofondunt with coste, TIIM HUI'KKMTIJNOKN'A' V. JOHN MqC)UT, — OlAlm of M(\ } for nflfllutod passagea from I England. Judgment for full Amount and COHtS. Tujindotjlj and Dibambr Ti T. I}. Bain.«Claim for £ti Us <id, Judgment fur £2\ 11b and COfltfli C, Lmjuro v, A. J. JUp)lau7..--0]a!»), 12» Oil. This oiiso hail boon fidjonrnod iwJeo, and his Worship, having boon oailsflod ro»pcot» ing tlio points upon which tho adjournments luul been made, gave judgment foe jiUilutlft with coats. Tins Day. (More Oi Oi Boweu, Esq., 1UI) ftmjNKDNNBBB."- Samuel Cox was brought up, ohargud with being drunk und hvajmblo lnofc nlghti Prisoner admitted tlio oflfoncc, rttidbolng hla first npnoftruncc, who Mimkied with a caution, AflBAUi/r.— EllzahothVulontlnowns olmrged with having assaulted lior husband, Gco. ValoiUlno. Oonatablo MulHna proved the florrlco of tlio flummona, but neither parties uppoivrod. Sorgcivnt-Majop Pardy mild ho bollovod iho ea«o lia<l boon arranged, Ilia Wornhlp voplled Hint lio could not; permit informations to bo laid in nucb a manner and tbon withdrawn. The polico must tuko v nwmovundum o£ tlio mutter, in ciwo another Information HhouM bo laid by the ««nw party. Anuflivn Languages.— Francis Amy and ono Annio Aiiiy woro olinrgod by Samuel I'lillllpß witli having used abuulvo and threatening language towards him, The female defendant only appeared, and said Amy was away at Loeoton. ConaUblo Groonwood nnid Jio bad Rorvod tlio nummoiiH on tho former. His Worship adjoiirnod tlio ea»o for a week, in ordor that it nhould bo pononally Horvod on tho male defendant. It aftouwfti'dfl (tppoared that female <l«fondant'« name was not Amy but Annto La arcflui'lor, and his Wornhlo diroctod tho summons to bo altorod accordingly. Jamcß Mclntyro wan charßod with BimiUrconduottownrdßiT.il. Donnott, Pprsonal florvlco of tho mimmona was proved,' but 1 defendant did not appe-vr. Tlio (joinplalnaivt oaid a public apology Ita<l boon mauo, and ho was not desirous of prainlng tho caoo. His Worship snid dofon* dant ought to, have appcarod in answor to tho (Jummonßi and ordered tji^isfluo of a warrant for hio 1 apprehension,, At a lator poriod of the day defendant appcarod, and Raid ho had boon toklby Mr Bennotfc, tho previous evening, that tho mattor wav sottlod. Ho had no in* tontion of bolng guilty of contempt of court. II In Worship eaid it was his duty to boo sum» moused renpondod to, bud, undor tlio olrcum«t«ncofli and Mr Bennett not desiring to prosccuto, no further stops would bo taken if defendant paid oostß. OIVII, OABRB. Judgment £ov plaintilts wn« glvon in tho following casosj— Oliafl. Alison v. n. Howe, JC2O> Shnnd and SonvPotor Korr r XI lO9> and 0. N. Hofton v it. Butts. : In Jftinoa Gobu v, Ti Stout, £Q Id, judgment w«s glvon lor .CIS 10s,