CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4507, 4 October 1882, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

' This Dat. ' (Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M., and S. Westenra, Esq). DetjitebnnE-S.— Two first offenders were fined 5s each. One of them had to pay Is 6d i for the hire of a cab engaged to take him to tho leck-up. — Thomas Wilson was fined £1 : and la 6d oab hire, and Cornelius O'Connor , 10s. In default of payment, the usual alternative of imprisonment was to follow in the above case". , Vaqb anoy.-— Johanna Gall agher we s accused of having no lawful visible means of support, i Constable Dougan stated that ho had arrested , the prisoner about 1 o'clock that morning in , Madras streot. He had previously cautioned r the prisoner on several occasions, having found ' her in company with women of bad oharactsr; and she bad no fixed place of abode. The . prisoner had been discharged from gaol a fortnight ago. Bhe pleaded for "another chanoe." His Worship said he [ noticed from the list of previous convictiore before him, that, during the past coven years, ; the accused had been frequently before the Court on various charges of drunkenness, obscene language, and indecency, and had, in fact, spent half her tima in gaol. He feared that do advice he onld give her would have any effect on her character. Still the Bench were willing to take a lenient viow, and the prisoner would be sent to gaol for seven days. , Any further appearance would be followed ; by eeveral months' imDrisonment. 1 CIVIL CASES. | Baitsb v. Oakland.— Uiaim 18s for meat supplied. Mr Button for plaintiff. Tho evidence waa to the effect that Mr Tudball, a butcher, had assigned his book debts to Mr . Popperoll by deed. Subsequently Mr Pepperell had made them over to the plaintiff. Defend ant had owed Tudball the amount claimed. | He had received a notice from Mr Peppprell stating that ho had purcha-ied the debtß, but subsequently met Tudball, who told him tho matter had been arranged, and that he (Tudbal) wus collecting the debte. Defendant had paid tho account to Tud ball's man. , Tho Bench considered that whilo it was hard i upon tho defendant that ho should have to . pay twice over, it appeared that Tudball had 1 no authority to collect the deb's after he had assigned them to another, and judgment was given for plaintiff with costs. Matson and Co. v. Oahiil,— Claim £_5 3s for horses purchused at auction. Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff. It was etaf od [ for tho plaintiff that defendant had purchased somo horses at auction, representing ho was acting under orders from a Mr John Oameron, , of Hokitika, and that Mr Oameron would i Bond the money by telegraph-order the eamo I day. efendant had never paid for the horse«, ! and Mr Wright, of Tattersal's, had eiDce ascertained he had no orders from Mr Cameron. His Worship oalled attention to the fact that tbe affidavit of juriediotion had been sworn beforo a solicitor, whereas it was necessary it should be taken either before a Justice of the Peace or the Olerk of the Oourt. Mr Stringer explained that he had been instructed subsequent to the affidavit ; being sworn. His Worship held tho affidavit \ was informal, and the oase was struck out. | CO-LIBB v. Stbabn.— Chiin £10 on an \ 1.0.0. Mr M'Oonnel for plaintiff ; Mr ', Stringer for defendant. PhtintifF, the licensee \ of the Koyol George Hotel, stated that defenJ dant eamo to his place on July 12 last from \ Cheviot Hills station, and remained about a ', fortnight. When he left defendant sa-'d ho | hud not enough money to pay his fares to t Cheviot, and plaintiff lent him £10, receiving I the 1.0. U. produced as an acknowledgment. I Jlaintiff had gone with defendant to tho I Union Bank, where defendant had money on j fixed deposit, some of whioh ho wished to k withdraw, but could not. Cross-examined : Dofendant cave witness his pocket-book with k £10 iv. it to tako care of when he arrived. ■ It was a Bunday when witness lent j defendant the £10, and ho left the following . morning. The bill produced, for £8 12s, dated . July 21, was given to defendant whon he left. - Did not give him the difference between £8 5 12s and £10, because wituess had paid ether j monies which covered it. Defendant denied any knowledge of the 1.0. U., and stated th_t when ho came to Christchurch he had a cheque for £40, £20 cf which ho dopjsitedin the Union B<ink, £4 ho expended in purchasing n clock and other articles, end gave £16 to Mr Collier to tako care of ; that when he loft the hotel he received £7 8s from Mr Collier, and paid the £7 to Mr M'Lean, of tho Cheyiot Hotel. The defendant was cross-examined at great length by Mr M'Con- » nel, aud either from want of comprehension I or some other causo contradicted himself more than oner. Tho case wus adjourned lo Friday next to enable tho Clerk of the Union I Bank to be subpoenaed to givo evidence. 5 ■