MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6184, 12 March 1888, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

CKRISTCHURCH. This Day. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M. ; and R. Westenva, Esq.) — rsreKTiTnTE Persons, .iw John Tiriina Watson was charged with neglecting to provide for his five children, whose ages ranged from four months to fourteen years. Constable Gill deposed that on March 7 he found the children at the house of a neighbour o£ the defendant. They had left their father's house, and witness told them to return. On March 9he found them wandering about the Btreets, and they refused to go home. He went to defendant's house, and found him helplessly i drunk on the bed. Witness took the chil- | dren to the Armagh street Depot. John i Wright deposed that the children wero i much neglected, and that he had supplied I them with food. The defendant wea remanded in custody to Wednesday next, in order that the evidence of lm eldest child, ■who had been committed to Burnham, might be obtained. CrviL Cases. — Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default in the caaea of A. J. White v. Mrs Davis, claim £11 1>8 2d; C. E. Hoddinofct v. A. Keynolds, claim .£1 10s 8d ; same v. G. Thompson, claim los lid; same v. Mrs Wilson, claim £1 2s; same v. H. T. Fuller, claim £1 8a 6d -, J. Wilson v. J. Burfc and wife, claim £7 Is (Mr Uowman for plaintiff) ; R. M'Causland v. H. Hunter, claim £2 (Mr Leatham for plaintiff) ; D. Gow v. A. Lilly, claim £1 11s 4d.—Cleary v. Wither, claim £1 os lid. Mr Joynt, for defendant, applied for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had sued Mr Wither, who was Resident Engineer of the Public Works Department, for an amount which he claimed from the Government. Under the Crown Suits Act the action should, he contended, have been brought against the Crown. In reply to the Bench the plaintiff said that he had no money to pay the fee for hearing. Mr Beetham saidfchatuaderthesecircuuisfcancea the case would have to bo struck out, unless the other side wished to pay the fee. Mr Joynt said that he would be satisfied i? the case were struck out. Case struck out accordingly.—Wood v. Neill and Co., claim £63 11s 7d. Mr Stringer for plaintiff; Mr Denniston for defendants. This waa an action to recover the baJaiice of the purchase money of a? 8 sacks of cockaf oot seed. The plaintiff's case was that, in November last, Mr F. Cross, a broker in Christchurch, acting for the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, on behalf of Mr Wood, arranged for the sale of the cocksfoot to N'eiU and Co. A sample waa sent by Mr Cross to Messrs Neill and Co.'s manager, and it wsb arranged that Mr Cross should appoint some person in' Lyttelton to inspeut the bulk or the seed. Mr J. W. Malcolmaon wa3 so appointed, rejected five sacks, and passed the remainder. Ib was contended that defendants were bound to accept the seed at the price agreed upon, 4d per Ib. For the defence it was submitted that the bulk of the seed was not according to the sample, and that the defendants were entitled to a reduction in the purchase money on account of the difference in value between the sample and the bulk. Mr Cross, it was alleged, sent to Mr Malcolmeon for his guidance what he described as a duplicate sample, but which, it was contended, waa inferior to that sent to Neill and Co. Mr Stringer contended that Mr Wood was not responsible for Mr Cross' dealings with the samples, and that Mr Cross was acting as agent for Neill and Co. quite as much as for Wood- After long argument, his Worship reserved judgment. — Judgment was given for the plaintiff by default in the case of CruikBhank v. Welsh, £-i 11s 7d.