CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4509, 6 October 1882, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Dat. (Before Caleb Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M.) Dbttnkbnness —David Dunn, who had not been before the Court for some time, was fined 5s. — A first offender was fined ss. .Ailbgkd Debebtion. — Peter M'Donald vras charged on remand, from Invercargill, with deserting his child, Catherine Ann M'Donald, and leaving her in Christchurch without adequate means of support. The accused denied any intention to desert his child, with whom, be said, he had corresponded since leaving Christchurch. He also said that his brother had brought the child to Christchurch, and he (accused) had provided a home for her at Invercargill, and was willing ta support her now. The accused's brother was called, and stated that he did not wish to press tho case, but only desired that the child might be supported. His Worship adjourned the case to Monday next ; prisoner to be discharged to enable him to make arrangamonfs for the girl's support. Alleged Imposition.— John Wilaon waa accused of imposing on Edward Hiorns by means of fraudulent representations ia writing, by which ho obtained a benefit. There was a further chargo against the accused of deaerting his three children in Timaru. Sergeant Mason asked for a remand till Monday; ho was not prepared to go on in the first charge, and the warrant in the second case was at Timaru, and had been telegraphed for. The accused protested his innocence, but did not oppose the Sergeant's application. Bemandod to Monday next. ClTli. Oases. — Tho case of Eeir v. Kirkwood waa further adjourned to Wednesday next. — Ell v. Greengoe, claim £47 15s lid for provisions suppliod. Mr Stringar for plaintiff ; Mr Izard for dofendant. Tho defendant disputod certain items of the account. Plaintiff produoed his day books, and the whole account was gone into at length. At the conclusion, his Worship considered plaintiff had proved his case, and gave judgment for the amount claimed ; but, as there was an UESJtißfied judgment, obtained by dofendant against the plaintiff for £24, execution was to issue f»r tho balance. — Collier v. Steam, claim £10 on an 1.0. U. Mr M'Oonnel for plaintiff ; .Mr Stringer for defendant. This case had been postponed ftr the production of further evidence. The daybook of plaintiff was produced, and showed an entry of tho £10 lent to tho defendant on tho dato named. His Worship considered ho wub bound by the 1.0. U. put in, which was corroborated by the daybook. He taw no reason to doubt the evidence of tho plaintiff, and gave judgment for the »raotint claimed, with costs.