CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5096, 2 September 1884, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day.

(Before E. Beethain, Esq., E.M., and F. J. Kinibell, Esq.) Drunkenness. —John Murphy, who had been remanded to Addington that he might recover from the effects of his drunkenness, was now charged with the offence. While detained, the accused had been violent in his behaviour, and torn up four of the gaol blankets. He was lined JEI, and ordered to pay £1 2s Gd for damages and cost of maintenance; in default four days' imprisonment. — Peter Boag, who had also been under medical treatment, was accused of having been drunk on August 25. Sergeant Morice gave evidence that on the date named accused had been walking in Cashel street in such an excited state that the sergeant deemed him unfit to be at large, and arrested him. Fined £1, and ordered to pay 12s 6d maintenance and 2s cab hire. Alleged Larceny. —Frederick Lane was accused of stealing a hammer, a square, and a pair of compasses, value 6s Gd, the property of William Styche. Accused, who was suffering from heavy drinking, asked to have the hearing of the case postponed for a few days, till he got the better of "these nasty shakes," and give him an opportunity of engaging counsel. His Worship thought it would take accused a week to recover himself, and remanded him to Sept. 9. Civil Cases. —Judgments were given for plaintiff by default in the following cases: Watson v. Dransfield, claim JEII 12s Id ; Fuchs v Gilchrist, claim .£1 15s ; Same v. Schramm, claim £2 16s 6d; Sherlock v. Gibson, claim ,£3 18s dtd. —Richards v. Mairs, claim 17s. Defendant pleaded bankruptcy. His Worship gave plaintiff judgment, but doubted if it would be useful to him. — Plaisted v. Gardiner and M'Donald, claim £1 5s for roller skates supplied to defendants. There was no proof of any sale, and defendants stated that the skates had been returned. Judgment for defendants. —Warren v. Wansey, claim ,£l9 12s 3d for carpenter's work done by plaintiff and his son. Mr Weston for plaintiff; Mr Slater for defendant. Plaintiff claimed at the rate of 10s per day for himself and 5s per day for his son. There were also certain works done by tender. Defendant stated that plaintiff had overcharged on some items, having agreed to do them for less, and had " dawdled " over the job, working when he liked and how he liked. Defendant considered 8s a day a fair wage for the work done, and said there was no agreement as to wages. His Worship said that as plaintiff was on day labour, if defendant was not satisfied he should have discharged him. The reductions defendant made were arbitrary and could not be countenanced. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, with costs. —H. A. Davis v. Berman, claim .£1 'Is, for 61bs of tobacco supplied.' Defendant had purchased a quantity of tobacco, and had objected that there was 61b less than plaintiff charged for. His Worship said that as defendant had taken delivery at the weight stated by plaintiff, and paid for the goods., he could not afterwards dispute the weight. It would be very dangerous if it was otherwise. Judgment for plaintiff. —Knight v. Sorensen, Gierschawski v. Hadfield, and Grigg v. Williams were adjourned to Sept. 9.