Wednesday, June 19.
(Before C. 0. Bowen, Esq., R.M.)
Labceny of a Nightdbess. — Catherine Boyle appeared, dh remand, in answer to a charge of this nature. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Ellen M'Callum said the nightdress produced was theyproperty of Miss Freer, and bpre her name. It was^sent to prisoner to wash about the 3rd- inst. Bridget Walsh said the prisoner had been employed by her as a laundress, and Bhe found the nightdress produced in her (prisoner's) box. Forthe defence, Mr Joynt called two witnesses, who stated that they had been in the employ of Miss Walsh and also of Mrs M'Goveran,from whom Miss Walsh purchased the business. Both swore that Mrs M'Goverah had left some articles of wearing apparel in the hands of accused to be returned to certain persons to whom they belonged. Amongst these was the nightdress in question. They were quite positive on the point. His Worship dismissed the case, remarking, however, that the mode of procedure in respect to the return of the nightdress was a very loose one, and justified the police in bringing the case before the Court.
Labceny OP Weabino Apparel. — Margaret M'Guire was brought up in custody charged with having stolen a quantity of wearing apparel from Petersen's shop in High street. Mr Thomas appeared for the defence. Constable Wilson proved to having arrested prisoner, who said she thought it was all right as she had sent the clothes back again. The four shirts, counterpane, window curtains, and two white vests produced had been handed to witness by Mr Monson. John Monson, manager, for Petersen and Co., said prisoner had been housekeeper for the prosecutors, and he discharged her on the 7th inst. When she was going away witness noticed that prisoner was taking a large bundle of clothes, and in reply to a question Bhe said tho goods belonged to a relation of her's at Kaiapoi who had recently come out from home. I asked if thoy did not belong to Mr Cohn — one of the partners in the firm of Petersen and Co., who is now absent — and I looked at them, bnt as 1 1 did not sco Mr Cohn's mark upon them I allowed her to take them away, telling her, however, that I believed them to be Mrj Cohn's. The day after prisoner left the clothes were sent in a bundle addressed to Mr Hall; the grocer, next door to Petersen's. By Mr Thomas : He could not say positively that the articles in the -bundle belonged to Mr Cohn. When prisoner left she was under the influence of liquor. Mr Cohn is in Melbourne. I called prisoner's attention to all tbe articles separately. Mary Mills said she was housekeeper for Mess s Petersen and Co., and was residing there some time back for about two years.' All the clothing produced belong to Mr Cohn. Witness was certain of it. Albert Triggs said he, resided opposite to Messrs Petersen and 'Co. Prisoner gave him a bundle of clothes on Saturday last, asking him to take
them" to Mr Hall, the grocer, and to ask him to give them to Petersen and Co. Witness asked if he could not take them direct to Petersen's, and prisoner said "No." Witness was almost certain prisoner was the woman who gave him the clothes. She was dressed as now. Constable Wilson re-called, said he had known prisoner for some time j she had been drinking very hard of late. She had been convicted twice for drunkenness, and once for larceny. Prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. 17.77 CIVII CASES. A. Cbaighead v. Httgh M'Lellan. — Claim £57 16s 4d. MrH. Thompson for. the >■ plaintiff and Mr Thomas, fdr the , defendant. -/ A cross case was also heard with this one, in ' which. M-Lellan was plaintiff and Craighead the defendant. Claim £51 7s lQd< In the ; : former case the defendant tendered 16s 3d into Court. After hearing the evidence the . Court gave judgment on both cases for the amount tendered, and ordered Craighead to " pay all expenses, amounting to £16 ss. BEIiIi V. GAEBICK AND COWMSHAW. Dr Foster for plaintiff; Mr Cowlishaw for defendants. In this action Samuel Lee Bell of Christ- ; churoh, confectioner, is ' plaintiff, and Francis ' James Garrick and William Patten Cowlishaw, solicitors, are the defendants. The particulars of plaintiff's demand are as follows :— To damajges sustained by the plaintiff through the. negligence pf tho defendants in the preparation (for fee and reward) of a certain, deed of conveyance of (inter aiid) 20 acres of land, being rural section 4386, by Messrs Walton and M'Lean to the plaintiff, and by reason of the defendants hot fulfilling their duty as solicitors in, exercising due and proper care and skill in investigating and enquiring into the title to the said land before preparing and completing the same deed, or the right of the vendors to convey the same, and in not disclosing the fact to the plaintiff that the vendors had no, title thereto, and whereby the plaintiff has, been caused to pay 7 divers moneys and has incurred divers expensea in relation thereto ; and has been induced to nay and did pay for the same land as if the title thereof was in the vendors, and the said conveyance was a valid conveyance j and has been prevented from selling the same at a large profit : £50. Dated this 22nd day of April, 1872. Dunoan and Jameson, . Plaintiff's solicitors. Samuel Lee Bell, examined by Dr Foster : I • am the plaintiff in this action. I remember seeing an advertisement in the Press of the 22nd September. Dr Foster said that he now put in the ad-:: vertisement, which was to the effect that Messrs Matson and Co.* instructed by Mr.; Walton, the provisional assignee, would sell certain properties in bankrupt estates, amongst which were certain sections belonging to the estate of one John. M'Lean — viz., section 4386. Witness: In consequence of seeing that advertisement, I bid at the auction, and bought certain sections the property of John M'Lean. Mr Cowlishaw said that he did not object to this evidence. But plaintiff was assuming that he bought the sections which rotated to , this action. .'77 '.-'"',' His Worship said that he would take the ' evidence .de bene esse. ~ ' ". ' Dr Foster : I think you afterwards went to . . Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw to tell them to , secure the title and prepare a conveyance. i Mr Cowlishaw-. I object to that. Itis most unfair on the part of my learned friend , thus to endeavour to lead the witness. Witness : I went to Mr Walton, iand he said, "Mr Garrick is the solicitor for the bankruptcy, and he must make out all the deeds." I said, " This is foreign to me ; Messrs Duncan and Jameson ' are my solicitors." Mr Walton said, "Mr Garrick must make out the deeds." I then went and saw Mr Garrick, and he said* "The deed will cost £2 12s 6d." I gave the receipts I had got from Mr Walton to Mr Garrick, who then said nothing about the title. Afterwards, when I called on Mr Garrick for the deed, I said, "Is it all right, Mr Garrick ?" He said, " Yes, it is all right except taking out the Crown grant, wbich you- will have tb db and pay > .■ for." This I believe is the conveyance made * * out for me. When I got tbe dead, Mr Garrick told me it would be all right if I paid the Crown grant. He said, "If you want to sell before you take up the Crown grant, sell on • the same conditions that you bought udder." The conditiona of sale were put in. Witness : I saw Mr Garrick about a week after the auction. About two months afterwards, I employed Duncan and Jameson to take up the Crown Grant, and see tbat all was , right. . 77" . j Dr Foster said that he would how put in v the Crown Grant, which was not tp , but to one Dowling ; also, office copies from the Registrar (Mr J. S. Williams), showing- ~r that the Crown Grant was to Dowling, not to M'Lean, a conveyance from Walton and another to Bell. Witness : I have tried tp sell the property, I met Mr John Parker shortly after the sale, and told him that if, he could find me a customer I would allow him a commission. I r have had several offers for the ; property. 1 have been offered £50 for the two sections in , Alford Forest. The last offer I had was on Monday last. After I found put that the j _ title was not all correct, I would not sell the; land .at Jaay price. .; I have not complained to ' Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw about the, defect in the title! I believe my .solicitors — Messrs Duncan ahd Jameßoh4-have^written to them about it. ; One of Mr Garnck's clerks told me, when they found they had made a ■ mistake, thai they would give me the sum I paid for the land. I think it was a clerk they called " Charlie " that told me so. Mr Cowlishaw :. lam prepared to say that the clerk had oo authority to ; inaie such wr' offer. .v.; ; r v*3 ;,-:.---."'i." 'iv ~;X.~7i HU Worship said that he thought the clerk I had better be called.
Witness : I paid Duncan and for ; their services in taking up the crown grant, viz., £4 13s. I paid that sum before they went to look. They told me that was about what it would coßt. Cross-examined by Mr Cowlishaw : I signed the conditions of sale. That is my signature. The sale was at Mr Walton's salerooms: I could not say when I instructed Mr Garrick to prepare the deed. I first went to Mr Garrick about a week after the sale or somewhere thereabouts. 7 77 John Parker, examined by Dr Foster: I remember being spoken tb by Mr Bell to sell some property that he had bought. He spoke to me particularly abou^Kspmo sections at Alford Forest and Littie* River. He said, " You know the property well, when you have sold one you may as well^sell the other." I wrote to Mr William Dunfpird, asking him if he was disposed to purchase two sections of land in Alford Forest. I afterwards saw him, and told him that they belonged to Mr Bell. He said tbat he would give'£4G for them. I saw him again, and told-him that Mr Bell would not take that. I af terwards saw Mr Dunford's father, and he told me that the land was worth £4 an acre — that was tbe Alford Forest sections! Dunford was to pay £40, and also the expenses of taking out the Crown grant. That was the offer that Bell refused. That was, I believe, within tbree or four days after the purchase. That is all I have had to do with the matter. Charles Edward Salter, -examined by Dr Foster — I am clerk to Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw, and have been with them for a considerable time. Dr Foster : I think you do their outdoor business to a considerable extent ? Witness : I do not know what you mean by " outdoor business." Mr Cowlishaw : I am sure I do not. Witness : By Mr Garriok's instructions I went to the Registry in August, 1871, to search for the title to section 4386. I found that nothing had been registered, and I communicated the result of my search to Mr Garrick. Nothing passed between us respecting it. Abodt two montbs afterwards I went to the Waste Lands Board, and found that the section had been granted to Benjamin Dowling ; that I think was in October. I find on reference to my book thatylt. was on the sth October I went to the Waste Lands Board. I had not previously to that date any knowledge to whom that section was crown-granted. I cannot say whether the conveyance to Bell had been previously executed. I waa aware that the business was being done in the office, but I am not aware when the deed was executed. His Worship : The deed was executed on llth October. ~ss.; k . Witness : I communicated the result of my search to Mr Garriok. I4p not remember Mr Garrick saying anything to me about it. Mr Garrick was aware oa : the Sth of October that the Crown grant was to Dowling; I think' I told him so. Ido not think that I searched the registry afterwards with regard to that particular section. I remember calling at Duncan and Jameson's office with reference to this matter, and saw Mr Hart. I went to see if they had ever prepared a conveyance from Dowling to M'Lean of that section. Hart searched, and said that they had not. I went to make that inquiry by Mr Garrick's instructions. That was after, the Sth of October; it may have beerfon tbe same day. Now I remember, I think it was on the same day. I have no doubt that I communicated to Mr Garrick that there. was no conveyance. Hart has seen me since, and brought a Crown grant to Dowling ; he said, " There has been no conveyance to M'Lean ; it is very clear the section never belonged to M'Lean." That conversation took place this year, so far as I can remember, but I really cannot tell in what month. Before the summons was issued, Hart said to me that it would be better to have the matter settled before Mr Bowen, privately. I had instructions from Mr Garrick to offer the amount of the purchase money to Mr Bell, £7 10s, and I made that offer to Mr Hart. He said that he could not acoept it until he had seen Mr Bell. I afterwands went to Bell and made him the offer, and he declined to take it. Ido not think that the summons had been issued then ; at all events, it had not been served. It was before I had any knowledge of any summons. By Mr Cowlishaw : I was instructed, when I made the offer, to admit no liability, but I was merely to make it for the purpose of avoiding litigation. After the search, I had instructions to make inquiries about the conveyance to M'Lean, and I went to Mr Wynn Williams for that purpose. They searched and found that they had not prepared any conveyance. Miohael Hart examined by Dr Foster : I am managing clerk to Messrs Duncan and Jameson. The plaintiff in tbis case came to our office and told me that he had bought some land from Mr Walton on the condition that the Crown grant should be taken out by him. He asked me to take up the Crown grants and see them properly registered. I instructed Mr Dean to take up the Crown grant. He did so, and to my great astonishment I found that it was not a grant to McLean, but to Dowling. I saw Mr Salter, and he proposed that the sum paid by Bell should be repaid to him. I am- under the impression that Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw were not aware of there being no Crown grant to M'Lean until after the preparation of the conveyance. Mr Bell would not accept the terms offered, and so there was no resource left but to issue a summons. Francis James Garrick, one of the defendants, examined by Dr Foster : I haTe heard the evidence of, Mr Salter. . I did npt communicate tp Mr Bell that the Registry Office had been searched, but I explained, to him the position of matters, iind told him the fact of the non-registration of tho order of sequestration, and told him what he would have to do. The sale took' place oni the 22nd" September. Mr 801 l came to my office on the 2nd October, but did not see me until the 4th. I
drew ; the deed of conveyance on the sth, liaving previously made several searches. I got the conditions of sale, and I was particular in drawing the deed, knowing that the deeds were lost when I found that they were not registered. The loss of the deeds does not affect' the title. Dr l Foster objected to this, the witness was not giving evidence, but stating his opinion. Mrf Cowlishaw : Your Worship will see that~Bell was bound to make objection to the title four days after the sale. Bell did npt do so until long after that time. His Worship over-ruled the objection. Witness : I could not communicate to Mr Bell that there was no title, because it was not tiie fact. I did not tell him that there was rio title on the Registry, nor that there was a Crown grant to Dowling. I only, to my recollection, saw Bell once, when he came to give me instructions. I swear distinctly that I explained matters fully to him, and cautioned him as to the manner in which he was to proceed. I knew in the first instance that the deeds were lost, by a conference I had with Mr Walton, and I prepared the conditions of sale after advising with him on the matter. When Mr Bell camo to me after the sale, I could not then make any objection as to the title, because, according to tbe conditions of sale, all objections were to be made to the title within 4 days after the sale, and Mr Bell did not call on me until after the 4 days had expired. I did all that could be done under tho circumstances. When Bell came to me I fully explained to him the matters, and cautioned him if he wanted to sell, how he was to sell with reference to the title, and as a matter of extra precaution, I got Mr M'Lean to be a party to the execution of the deed. Subsequently Mr Jameson came to our office, and made some observations about liaving to make a claim on the part of Bell. I said " rather than have any shine about the matter I would give Be his money back." He said ' Bell won't tako £7 10s, he wants £40." I said that I would not give any such sum. lam perfectly satisfied that M'Lean has a title. By Mr Cowlishaw : Mr Walton referred us to Messrs Duncan and Jameson or Mr Wynn Williams as likely to know something about the deeds to M'Lean. Mr Walton informed me that M'Lean had returned these properties in his' schedule as belonging to him. I believe when Bell came to me I explained to him the difficulties about the title, and that he would have to guard himself if he sold by conditions of sale. I believe that I communicated to Bell the difficulties about thetitle. The conditions of sale expressly state' that Mr. Walton only sold his right, title, and interest in the property, and not further orotherwise. Mr Bell has signed the condition's of sale in the following terms : — " Subject, to the above terms, and conditions, Richard Walton, as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John M'Lean, sells his estate and interest in lots 5676 and 4386, rand Samuel Lee Bell purchases the same at the price of seven shillings per acre. Signed Samuvel Lee Bell." The. present price of rural land is £2 per acre. Inquiries were made through Mr Walton as to whether Mr M'Lean had had a conveyance. This closed plaintiff's case. Mr! Cowlishaw submitted that plaintiff must be nonsuited, but before stilting the grounds, he wished to draw attention to the following conditions of sale : — ; ; ? 3. The above properties are sold by Mr Richard Walton as a trustee in bankruptcy, and he only sells his right, title, and interest therein and thereto, and not further or otherwise. 4. Tho vendor will deliver to the purchaser of each lot all title deeds that may be in his possession relating to the property sold, but shall not be bound to produce or covenant to produce or obtain a covenant for the production of any other deeds or muniments of title relating to the properties sold, whether for the verification of title or otherwise. 5. The vendor shall not be bound to take up or register the Crown grant of any of the properties, or any other deeds, orders in bankruptcy, or muniments of title relating to the various properties to be sold, or any of them, but such grants shall be taken up, and shall with such other deeds, orders, and muniments of title be registered by and at the expense of the purchaser of each property. 6. Every objection which any purchaser shall >be entitled to take under these conditions shall bo made in writing to the vendor within four days from the day of sale, and all objections not so taken and, mode shall be considered as waived, and no objection shall be taken to the execution of any deed relating to any of the properties to be sold under power of attorney, but all suoh deeds shall be taken- as properly executed, and the powers by which the same purport to be so executed sufficiently verified in law. Subject to the above terms and conditions Richard Walton, as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John M'Lean, sells his estate and interest in lot 5676 and 4346, and Samuel Lee Bell purchases the same at the price of seven shillings per acre. '- Samuel Lie Bell. With regard to the first ground — for nonsuit — it was quite clear that the plaintiff had put himself beyond the position of asserting neglect, because he had stated that he did not instruct his solioitor until after the time to make objections to the title — four days, according to tbe conditions of sale — had lapsed. The conditions of sale required that objections should be made within four days after the sale, and Mr Bell said that he did not see Mr Garrick until a week after ; and Mr Garrick said that it was on 2nd October — ten days afterj Plaintiff had, therefore, waived his right' to object to the title. The second ground was, that Mr Bell did not buy the fe simple of the land, but only Mr Walton's right; title, and interest therein. Any person afc tl^e sale must have known that the title was extremely fishy for no trustee would have sold under conditions like those unless the title was defective. The learned counsel cited "Sugden's Vendors and Pur- : I chasers," 13th Ed. 14 p., Molloy v. Sterne,\
3 D. and W., 585. Ererne and others, v. Wright, 4 Maddock, 364, in support that the vendors were only bound to adduce and sell title as bankrupt had. The third point was : That the onus of proof of defect in the title was in the plaintiff . There was no evidence before the court that there was not a good title to the land. The only evidence before the court was that the deeds.yhad not been registered, and it was quite: consistent with the fact, that although deedis-had not been registered, yet that they had existed, and had been lost. Indeed Mr Garrick's evidence seemed to show that there had been a deed from Dowling to M'Lean. The r last nonsuit point was — Could the court, under the circumstances, say that there was any negligence ? In order to sustain an action df this kind, gross negligence must be proved. The witnesses called by the plaintiff showed that the utmost care had been taken by the defendants in this matter, they had actually done more than they were compelled to do. On these grounds he asked the court to nonsuit the plaintiff. v - Dr Foster : I refuse to be nonsuited. The following witnesses were examined on the part of defendants. ..;•..* Richard Walton, examined, by Mr Cowlishaw : I am Provisional Trustee in tho estate of John M'Lean, and as such, I instructed Messrs Matson and Co. to sell certain properi ties belonging to the bankrupt, on the conditions that have been produced.- Mr M'Lean returned thoso properties in his schedule of assets. I had a conversation with Mv M'Lean with regard to those properties. Dr Foster objected. Conversations with the bankrupt were no evidence of title. His Worship allowed tho objection. Witness : I was present at the sale and saw Mr Bell there. One of the parties present asked the auctioneer whether the titles were guaranteed, in reference to the small price offered. I stood up and said, "We do not guarantee any title whatever ;" we simply sell what right, title, and interest we have in the estate ; we guarantee nothing." It is not true what Mr Bell has said, that I said he must go to Garrick and Cowlishaw to get the deed of conveyance prepared. I remember Mr Garrick coming to me and asking me to make inquiries respecting the deeds. I saw Mr M'Lean, and he told me that he believed there was a conveyance ;- that he had purchased the forty acres, and paid the money to Dowling, and that he believed Duncan and Jameson had tho deed in their possession. I went down to them, and they searched, but could not find it. I told Mr M'Lean, he said, "It is very strange ; they were my solicitors, and so was Mr Wynn Williams. I then went to Mi* WilUams, who searched, but could not find the deed. I told M'Lean, and said, " You must take some trouble in this matter." M'Lean afterwards went and produced the numbers now in the conditions of sale. I understood that he got them from Messrs Duncan and Jameson, but I may be mistaken. M'Lean has sworn in his four days' statement that the 40 acres • were his property. , Mr Vigors, from the Supreme Court office, put in the four days' statement, Mr Walton : Mr M'Lean told me that he had possession of this land. It is impossible that I should know it of my own knowledge. I know that he was in the habit of getting, timber from it. By Dr Foster : I do not think that he paid for that timber. lam perfectly satisfied that he did not. Mr Hennah was called, but as his evidence amounted to what M'Lean had told him respecting the property, it was npt received. Mr Cowlishaw said that he would rely, upon the points he had raised, and cited further Wilmot v. Wilkinson, 6 b and c, 60S ; Corral v. Cattle, 4, m and w, 734. Dr Foster addressed the Court on the part of plaintiff, and after stating that there was. a great deal of difference between- selling land ivith a defective title and with no title at all, he argued that in the present case the vendors had failed to show that they had any title to the land which they had sold to the plaintiff, and he contended that it was the duty of Mr Garrick to have seen that his client was. not damnified, and when he found that there was no title he ought to have said, " You. are at liberty to refuse to complete your contract and can claim back your deposit, or you can bring an action against Mr Walton. He cited in support, "Dart on vendors and purchasers, 3rd edition* 101-2' ; : Hopkin& v. Grazebrook, 6 B and C, 31 ; Lockhart v. Le Fleming, New Zealand Court of Appeal cases. ■ Mr Cowlishaw having briefly replied,. His ' Worship said that he would give judgement on that day week. This Day. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M., and — Aylmer, Esq. R.M. (Ross.) Illeoazly Plying foe Hibe. — Walter Hartnall was summoned for having permitted his stage carriage to be used for hire between Christchurch and Papanui, without the same being endorsed on his license. Constable Sheppard said he saw accused drive up the Papanui road with four horses, and return later in the evening loaded with passengers. Accused is licensed to run between the Postoffice and Sumner. Christopher Dalwood corroborated the constables' evidence. Accused said he had been speoially engaged bya gentleman, and was not plying for hire. His Worship said the ooaoh oould not be used out of its registered route, and a fine of 10s would be imposed. Neglecting to keep Lights Buhning. — William Smart was charged on three separate informations (three nights in succession) with having neglected to keep a light burning on a hoarding ereoted by bim in Cashel street. Constable Brown proved the offence, stating that the cause was shortness of the wick in the latap. A fine of 10s was imposed. — Archibald Johnstone was charged with a simile m neglect, on a hoarding erected by bim in Colombo street. Constable Brown proved the case. Accused said there was not a. hoard ing.
but- OElf* ar<BcafFdld. The constable -said*'t!ie scaffa&Mmpeded the traffic on the f-bothpathj. as the Heads of people would touch) it^in passing. Ai witness called by accused, s»klhe had erected the scaffold, and that the flooring of-itf was 6in. from the ground, and only-pro-jected sbbufc a -foot on to the footpath.- Thecase was-dismissed, and accused was informed that a light must be kept burniag^ foiv however- much anything projected over-. the f ootpathy id came within the law. Cattle*- at Large. — John Hobden,*.one cow,, in Lichfield street, fined ss ; J;i B. Sheath, one>harse-, on the Ferry road, lmed- ss.L t nbegistered Dogs. — The foUowing,casea were heard i^-Robert Falloon, one dog;.fi»jed 20s ; James Irving, one dog, fined 20* ; Henry ■ Holt, one - dogi-adjourned for a fortnight, for evidence as-to age ; Robert Gilkes,- onenlog, fined 20s}~ Thomas Anderson, one dog,.fined 20s. Weigeis-and Measttbes Act. — The f ol4 lowing informations: laid by constable Walch, the Inspector^ Weights and Measures,. were disposed ef Ji — James Grapes, painter, Paganui road, one- pint measure unstamped, but correct, fined: 20s> and measure to be destroyed. Stephen Collins, Papanui road, one 4-lb-iron weight; 4 dfaahins light, and unstamped ? and one 2-lb weight, 2 drachms light, but Btaraped. Accused said the weights had all been stamped: by Mr Bruusden, but the lead put inte theweights by Brunsderi to make them .correct;, and on whichi.ho affixed the stamp,, frequently came loose -and fell out. A fine of; 20s -was; imposed, and the weights were ordered to., be forfeited. Hj B. Lorrensen, Papanui road;. 1-cwt Avery, maohine, unstamped, but correct; one 1-lb iron weight, unstamped; and ono i-lb iron weight, unstamped, 1 drachm light? ; fined 20s, and the weights to . be forfeited; — Stephen. Simpson, Papanui road, .one &-oz. weight, unstamped, . but correct. . Accused' said ho had been several times to see- MrBrunsden> but could not find him. in. Afflbe of 20s -was imposed, and the • weight • was ordered to be forfeited. — John G. Hart,, butcher, Papanui road, ono pair ofi steelyards,, unstamped, but correct ; one l«lb weight, lj. drachms light ; one spring balance, very incorrect f fined 20s, and the balance and weight to be destroyed. — Nathaniel Harris, Carlton hotel, seven lipint measures,.and two i-pint measures, unstamped, but correct ; fined 20s, and the measures to be forfeited. WiUiam Redfern, Papanui road, one 14-lb weight, 9 drachms light, and unstamped; one 4-lb weight, 9 drachms light; one 7-lb weight, unstamped, but: correct; one 2-oz weight and '. one 1-oz weight, unstamped, but corteefc; fhiecl 20s, and the weights to be forfeited. Abusive and Threatening Langitage. — Daniel Munro and — Milburn .were summoned for having used abusive and violent language towards Samuel Treleavan.. Complainant keeps the Bridge Inn, on, the North, road, and stated thatontheeveningofiSunday, 9th inst., the accused came to his house.knocked'furiously at the door, and when asked what, they wanted replied" We want some beer you>b r." He saw that they were drunk, and; he ordered them away, but they would not go. They continued their disturbance,.and'whien he went out they abused him inj a. very violent manner, Munro'. being- by far the worst of the two. They were so violent that he- had to keep guard over his. door, for several; hours, and he informed the Bench, that Munro had frequently been, guilty of, similar' conduct previous to the date named; Tho disturbances on the North, road, werej, in fact, becoming; intolerable ; and .hey must have a stop put to them, Munro, in defence, said that when they asked for beer complainant began to. abuse- tbem, and they merely replied to. him.. Complainant denied this, and pointed! o»t that accused had np. right to. go to the house at all on a Sundajj night. Munro, was fined £3, and Milburn was fined £1 lOs. Viodbnt Assault. — Frederick Williams waschnTged withhaving violently assaulted Va-lentine-Thomas Sear> and also with having used threotening language. Complainant did not appear,' and accused said that Sear wished to withdraw the information. Inspector Pender said- he believed this to be the case. His Worship permitted the information to bo withdrawn. SLATJGJMJEB-HOrSE LICENSKB. — The follpwing applications were heard : — John Brett,. Kirwee farm, Courtenay. No objection* Grantejdi — William Collins, section 832 ft Springs district. No objection. Granted; — Joseph Haydon, section 4505, Ellesmere Junction road. No objection. Granted. — Thos. Kennedy, sections 1081, 1592, and U913, Halswell. No objections. Granted. — Ijodge and Carter, section 1136, Racecourse. No objection^ Granted.— Mackie, Bros., Lamington station; Rakaia. No objection. Gsaated. — Parker Westenra, Camla station, Selitryn. No objection. Granted. — H. T. Winter, Ashburton' station. No objection, ©ranted. — J. Withey, Windmill road. Ni> objection. Granted. — Thos. Ward, section 8021, Selwyn Forks. No objection. Grafted. — T. W. Stead, section 109, Ashburton, township. Applicant'did not appear, and as a report had not been received from tfej* constable in the district, Inspector Pender* requested that the application might be adjourned until next week. ' The application was granted.