MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6421, 14 December 1888, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, chbistchujbch. i This Day. KBefore John OHivier, Esq., E.M • J T Matson and H. M'llwiaiih, Esqs.) * r, A ? CB ?2?' A 8 A BroomJiall hmith was charged on remand with . IF"**?' M a baUee » o£ tke Bum "°L *,T Propel of Charles Goldof the Bailway • HoteL Accused pleaded "-Guilty" to the chaise. De-tectave-Doolan called the wife of proseOTtor, who swore that accused was mrife Bober when the note was given him to change, had had only two glawes of whisky. She had onlylorown hankie day prevaous to the tfceffc. Betective Doolan informed the Bench thafcaceused, when arrested by Detecthre<yConnor^a7e a wrong name. Sergeant Stagpoole said that he had previoosly-known-accnsed-at Gisborne, where he-was. charged*ifchsobtaininff board and lodging by means of false pretences. Hethemsefrup as*- defence that he was from the effects of a sunstroke, which .Tendered him not responsible for, hia actions. He was there :*cquitted..on the charge. Accused said sthat he had two sunstrokes, and a f ew drmkß Jnade him quite beside him•self, and ha had no recollection of the affair. The Bench said hia action all through, the business 1 was not that of an innocent man. He had rendered himself kable-to be senfcto the Supreme Court oa where,if he-was found guilty, he would probably be- sentenced to asevere term of imprisonment. They would, however, deal summarily with the case, and send him to gaol for one-month's imprisonment. , Civii, Cases.— Kmghtand Honeybonev. William Thomas, claim £11 9s. Mr D. Wynn-Williamß for plaintiffs; Mr Joyce for defendant. Elaintiffs weiecontractora for part of the Sumner tramway linej of which they constructed No. 3 contract. Defendant Thomas waa,an employee of the Sunnier Town Board, and was engaged in repairing the footpaths of the town? He went with Mr Grahanvone,o£ the Town Board Commissioners, to plaintiffs, and asked to be allowed to use some of the scoria that was being taken out in, wideniS g ? e J^ n^ ***** Eock « to spread on the footpaths of the town. Permission was given for defendant to take-the-stuff .and le continued doing co for some time*during August and September. No price waa named, and at. .first no account was. kept of the number of yards of scoria taken away. Plaintiff then told defendant to keep an account of the stuff as he waa going ftwjharge him. 1b- tkjsrd for it. The defence was that until the*ub-eontractora had an offer for the stuff it was being thrown over the side of the road into the Estuary, and that some-six hundred yards rof stuff had been so treated, when defendant asked to be allowed to-utilise the waste material. Defendant swore that he was getting only 2s per yard from the Town Board for the material, and that it was on the understanding that he was to get it for nothing that the tender was made so low. James Graham swore that he went with defendant to Knight abont the stuff, and certainly understood that lie was to get it for nothing; judgment for defendant, with costs. — Adams v. Davis, claim £8 Is 2d - .adjourned to Jan. 11, 1889.— 5. Engsfoxd v. Henry Chislett, claim £1 6s 7d-; £1 la into Court rjudgmentfor balance, and costs by default.