CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5297, 29 April 1885, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Thib Day. (Before R. Westenra, P. J. Kimbell, and P. Guinness, Esqs.) Drunkenness. —Prank Johnson wa3 convicted of this offence, and fined 10s and Is- Gd cab hire. CIVHi CASES. H. E. Nathan v. Ware.—Claim .£lB 4a 2d for money due on a promissory note taken as security for loan. Mr Russell for plaintiff, Mr Spackman for defendant. Judgment had previously been obtained against Schoeneberg, the other signatory to the bill for JBIB 4s 2d. Plaintiff stated that Schoeneberg bad since been insolvent, and no dividends had been declared. The promissory note was for £28 15s, of which had been paid. The loan applied for -was JE23, repayable at £1 3s per week. The fines for non-payment of instalments were Id per week for each la left unpaid, and the promissory note was drawn for 25 per cent above the amount lent in order to cover possible fines, and it was returned after the loan wasre paid. 23s was deducted on account of commission, and 3k Gd for office expense^. There was a balance of a former loan—Jß3 10s—and defendant received a cheque for £1Q 12a Gd, when the promissory note was accepted for .£2B 15s. In cross-examination, Mr Spackinnn produced a book of rules, which plaintiff admitted were those of the "Loan and Discount Company" in Hereford street, as he styled bis office. These rules stated that loans were advanced for any period on deposit of deeds or any other securities, repayable by weekly, monthly, or quarterly instalments j no expense but the actual rate of interept agreed on. Mr Russell objected that the rules were irrelevant. Receipts for money paid on account appeared on the rules, and the Bench admitted them. Mr Spackman contended that as the whole amount involved was £28 15s, any part of which could be disputed, tho sitting Justiceß had no jurisdiction. After argument, the Bench concurred, and nonsuited the plaintiff on this ground. Miscellaneous. —De Veaux v. Harris, claim £2 17s, for subscriptions to the Weekly Advertiser. Mr Russell, for plaintiff j Mr Perceval, for defendant. It appeared that the BUinmonß had been aerved on the wrong man—a resident at Wai*ari —instead of Peter Harris, Styx. Judgment for defendant, with costs. — Cohen v. Schrader, claim £hi 8s 3d, balance due on a promissory note. Mr Deacon, for defendant. The bill had been given by Mrs Schrader during the lifetime of the late Mr Schrader, and the action was brought against his widow. Mr Deacon contended that his client was not liable, and plaintiff accepted a nonsuit with costs. —Duncan, Cotterill and Martin v. Jenning3, claim .£3 3a, for preparing a bill of sale. Defendant said ho had only enquired the cost of preparing the document on behalf of his employer, Mr Roberta. Mr Cotterill stated that the defendant had given him instructions to prepare the bill of sale. Judgmont for plaintiffs with costs. — Butlor v. Bean, claim j69 17s Gd for money lent and return of wearing apparel. Mr Buasoll for defendant. Plaintiff's wife had

been lodging with defendant, a widow. Mrs Bean had refused to give up certain articles of wearing apparel till the balance she alleged to be due for board and lodging was paid. After hearing the statements of the parties concerned, the Bench made an order for the return of the goods on payment of £3 17s due for board and lodging.