MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4163, 24 August 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHRISTOHUROH. WBM.BS_.AT, ATTGT.ST 24.

(Before 3. Nugent Wood, Esq., 8.M., J. Ollivier, R. Westenra, and J. E. Parker,

Esqs)

DBUBXBinrßfla.— A first offender, on remand from the previous day, was fined ss.— Another, for being drunk in charge of a horse and cart, was fined 10s.

Labchht.— John Sullivan was charged with tbe larceny of an overcoat, value £1, the property of Maurice Drury, at Timaru. On the appUcation of Superintendent Broham the prisoner was remanded to Friday next, to be brought up at the Timaru Besident Magistrate's Court.

NE-H-30Tr_.a to Peovtdk. — Andrew Hardie was ordered to pay 3s 6d a week towards the support of bis child in the Burnham Industrial sohool.

BbhoT-lL ov LiOH-CSB.— On the application of Mr ?M'Connel on behalf of Mr Henry Fenton, his Worship granted a temporary removal of the license of the Heathcote Arms to mora commodious premises. CIVIL CASES. Jttdgmbwt bt Db*aui.t, —Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in tbe foUowing cases for the amount stated with ces ts : — Brake v. Duncan, claim £1 13s 8d ; Coales and Co. v. Howlings, olaim 15s IOd ; Orown Brewery v. Malcolm, claim £30 10s 3d.

Piphb t. Thohas— His Worship gave judgment in tbis case as follows : — The first question is— l. Were the rules of the Canterbury Coursing Olub adopted by the Papanui Club f which I find is the case as proved by the minutes of tbe s eoretary. 2. Was the entry of L°lex contra-y to the spirit of those rule.*? The dig "Lelex" was formerly called " Marmion," but as there is no evidence that he ever ran ir public under that name, it is of no importance, and the question is thus confined to his nomination, and whether he was disqualified through not having paid a penalty imposed on him. I find that Lelex was not the bond fide property of a member of a recognised Coursing Olub at the time he was entered, and I find the plaintiff entered the dog as his own property, and neglected the prefix of "N. 8.," as provided by rule 8. Mr Piper states that he was the owner of the dog till after the course, but rule 5 must be read with rule 4 ; and the note to rule 4, which musfc be looked at aB the interpretation clause of the term " bond fide," provides that " no dog purchased or procured in any way for a limited time to beheld as bond fide property." Ab regards the Becond objection, which was tbe real cause of the disqualification of Lelex, viz., that his owner had been find £1 under rule 22, which provides that "Any person allowing a greyhound to get loose and join in a course whioh is being run shall be fiaed £1 ;" and the Olub not having any other means of recovering a penalty have protected themselves under rule 33, which provides that the Committee or Stewards may, in addition to any peouniary penalty so inflicted, declare the persons offending incapable to run or enter a greyhound in his own or any other person's name during any subsequent period that they may decide upon, and therefore I find that the Stewards were justified in disqualifying Lelex. Judgment for defendant with costs, expenses of one witness 10s, and professional fee £1 Is.

BOWJ-BT t. Btjbbon. — » Claim to recover possession of a certain house at Knightstown, occupied by defendant, the property of plaintiff, nnder section 82 of tbe Besident Magistrate's Act. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Gresson for defendant. The plaintiff said that he bad bought a property at Knightstown from the mortgagee of Mr Crabtree. Before he had purchased the property he found that the defendant was in possession of a bake-house on the property. The defendant told witness that he had a lease of the bake-house for five years. Plaintiff then told him that he would allow him to occupy the premises for a time. Defendant paid witness 15s per week rent. Subsequently witness gave defendant a month's notice to quit, but he refused to give up possession. Crossexamined: On the night before witness bought the property Mrs Burson told witness tbat he could not buy the property as her husband had a lease of it; witness told defendant he could stop in tbe place because he did not wish to bave him out. — Burson, the defendant, deposed he wis in occupation of premises the present property of plaintiff; he held the property under an agreement for tenancy from Mrs Crabtree (produced.) Mr Stringer objected that the agreement was insufficiently Btainped, Mr Gresson said he was prepared to stamp the agreement properly and to pay the fine of £5. Examination continued : Plaintiff told witness when ho had bought the property that he (defendant) could stop as long as long as ho liked. Defendant's wife said sbe had told plaintiff thafc her husband had a lease of tbo property for five years. — Falconer deposed that shortly after the sale of the property at Matson's he had heard plaintiff tell defendant that he had no wi.h to disturb him in the possession of his leaso. Mr Gresson submitted that as defendant had bought the property with a knowledge of defendanthaving a lease and had permitted bim to continue to occupy he could not now expel him. Mr > Stringer pointed out that the Hon J. T. Peacock.from whom plaintiff had purchased, helda mortgago over the property previous to its being made over to Graco Crabtree, from whom the defendant had leased the premises in queation. His Worship ordered possession to be given up on Sept. 24. Costs allowod, with professional fee, £3 3s.