MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5606, 30 April 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. CHEISTCHURCH. This Dat. (Before E. Westenra and H. J. Hall Esqs.) Dednkbnneßs. — A first offender was fined 63, or 24 hours' imprisonment, for this offence. False Pretences. — Amy Bock alias Laing, was acci^ed, on remand, of obtaining goods value £7 9s lOd, from G. L. Beath and Co. . by false pretences, on April 15 last. Mr Joyce appeared for accused, who was respectably dressed, and though frequently refem d to as a young woman during the hearing of the case, sho had the appearance of being prematurely aged. Inspector Pender called H. J. Gahagan, an assistant at G. L. Beath and Oo.'s, drapers, Chri&tchurch, who said accused came to the shop on April 13 instant, and gave him a list of draperies (produced). She Baidthe goods were for Mr Whitefoord, of Kaiapoi. She gave the address, " Miss Laing, care of Mr Whitefoord, Kaiapoi," and asked that the goods might bo sent to the railway station. This was done j bub it was found out very soon that Mr Whitefoord knew nothing about the matter. Constable M'Cormack, stationed at Lyttelton, said he went to Wellington and arrested accused there on April 23. She was in company with another woman, who was carrying a parcel which belonged to accused and contained a dreßS (produced), which waa evidently part of the goods she had obtained from Beath and Co. Accused said, in answer to the constable when he charged her, " Yes, I did it; it was Mr Haxell's fault." Caleb Whitefoord, Resident Magistrate of Kaiapoi, said he had never seen accused before, and had never authorised her to obtain goods from Beath and Co. The list produced was not in his handwriting, or in that of any person in his employment. In answer to the usual question, whether she would be dealt with summarily or not, accused pleaded guilty. Mr Joyce called H. N. Haxell, hotelkeeper, Lyttelton, who deposed that he had known accused as a school-teacher in Victoria, where her health broke down from over work, and she suffered from brain fever. Lately he had engaged her as governess for his children, and a few weeka ago she had been very excited in her manner. She had told him she had come in for some money, which her uncle was keeping for her. He thought she was labouring under an hallucination, and on telegraphing to her father, witness received a reply that there was no truth in her statement, and she must be wandering in her mind. She had left her situation abruptly. If accused was discharged lie would undertake to send her to her parents. Mr Joyco addressed the Bench on behalf of his client, urging that the case was one for mercy, as apparently the accused was not responsible for her actions. Inspector Pender said the accused had been convicted of a similar offence in Auckland. The Bench conBidered the prisoner had been knowingly guilty of a criminal act, and sentenced her to one month's hard labour. Labckny. — George Henry Cook was \ charged with stealing a pair of earrings j value sa, the property of Kitty Codling, on ! April 2-t. Accused denied the charge. Mrs Codling said that accused had been in her house 4 , Kilmore street, when she was I moving, a few days ago. She missed a j pair of earrings from the mantlepiece. j Accused had left the earrings with the night porter at the White Hart Hotel, I who told Constable Dillon about the matter. ! When spoken to by the constable, accused ' said Mrs Codlin had given them to him. I Accused now said he had picked up the I earrings to tako care of them for the woman, but had no intention of stealing them. He said he had told the night porter they did

not belong to him. The night porter at the White Hart waa called, but he did not corroborate accused's statement. There was a previous conviction for a similar offence, and prisoner was now sentenced to one month's hard labour. Bad Boys. — Joseph Whitford (14) and William Whitford (12) were charged with stealing two flutes, value 8a Gd, the property of John Barrett, on April 26. They admitted having stolen one of the flute*. As there had been nothing previous against the boys, the Bench took a lenient view, and allowed them to go, on the understanding that they would be brought up for sentence if they' misbehaved at all in future. CIVIL CASKS. (Before C. "Whitefoord, Esq., E.M., and H. J. Hall, Esq.) Defaults, &c. — Judgment was given for plaintiff by default iu the cases of Morgan v. Grant, claim .£43 10s ; De Veaux and Company v. Rodger, claim £2 2s ; same v. Hannon, claim £2 2s ; WitHey, Watts and Company v. Roberts, claim £2 17s lOd ; Invrood v. Shalvey, claim £9 ; Cooper v. Smith, claim £G 7s 9d ; Petersen and Company v. Toss will, claim .£l4 17s ; Klingenstein v. Oaborne, claim .£1 ; Canterbury Building Society (Permanent) v. Taylor, claim £20 2s 8d ; Doig v, Skoy, claim £16 9s. — In Seaton v. Saunders, claim £1 17s 6d, for livery, &c, plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. — Beath and Co. v. Swindell was adjourned to May 14. — In Stratz v. Wright, claim J5lB 14a Bd, judgment was given for defendant, each party to pay his own costs. Phillips v. Landergan. — Claim .£2O for damages caused by a fire at Templeton. Mr Martin for plaintiff; Mr Holmes for defendant. This was a rehearing of a case in which judgment had been given for defendant. The broad facts in connection with the case have been reported in connection with previous cases against the same defendants. The fire which did the damage had originated on defendant's farm, and the question at issue was whether the man who lit the fire to burn gorse had been in the employment of defeudant at the time or not, and whether the act of lighting the fire was one for which the defendants could he- held liable. The case had been partly heard previously, and to-day further evidence for the defendant was taken, and counsel addressed the Bench. Mr Holmes (r\i'd that defendant could not be liable, because the lighting of the fire was an unlawful act under the Public Works Act, for which a master could not be held liabl*. Judgment was reserved. Holland v. Warner.— Claim, j843 10s. Mr Izard for plaintiff ; Mr Holmes for defendant. Plaintiff said that on April 12 he applied to defendant, who i3 agent for " Cobb and Co/s" West Coast coaches, for a ticket for a passage to the Otira Gorge on the next trip. He placed four £1 notes on the counter before defendant, and then defendant gave him 10s change. Plaintiff then said he wanted a box eeat. Defendant told him that he would have to pay 5s extra. Plaintiff refused to go at all unless he got a box seat for .£3 10s. Defendant told him he would have to arrange that with Mr Cassidy, the driver and proprietor of the coach. Plaintiff declined to have anything to do with Mr Cassidy, and asked for his money to be returned. Defendant refused this, and had not returned the money since. Defendant stated in evidence that he had explained to the plaintiff clearly that he was only the agent for the coaches, and had merely deferred the settlement of the dispute till he saw Mr Casßidy. After being authorised he Bent word to Mr Holland that he could get a box-seat for .£3 10:?, but plaintiff then refused to take it. Mr Holmes contended that plaintiff had sued the wrong party ; he should have gone against Cassidy and Co. Defendant was merely an agent. His Worship nonsuited plaintiff, but did not think the case was one for costs.