MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6704, 18 November 1889, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

I CERISTCHURCH. This Day. I (Before B. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Failing to Peovide. — Mark Daniel was * charged with failing to provide for his wife and child. Mr Caygill, for defendant, stated that an arrangement had been made between the parties. Inspector Fender applied for an order for the cost of bringing the defendant from New Plymouth, where l he had been arrested. His Worship, after • examining the information, said that it must be dismissed, aa it disclosed two r offences, and was therefore bad. Cona sequently he would make no order for the a costs of arrest. Civil Casks. — The case of Ayers v. i Lean, claim JEIO 19s 4d, was adjourned to b Nov. 25 ; that of Marriott v. Orr, claim £3 9s, to Deo. 17; and that of Kellagher v. f Kennedy, claim .£l9 12s 6d, to Dec. 2.— I Hiorns v. the captain and owners of the i R.M.S.S. Coptic, claim JEI6 103. Mr D. r Wynn- Williams stated that the plaintiff r wished to withdraw the case. Mr Nalder, r for defendants, applied for costs, -which b were granted, and the case was struck out. H rfl Moore V. Bowker, claim .£IOO. Mr f Core for plaintiff, Mr Brugeß for defendant. 3 The case had been heard on Thursday l hist. His Worehip now nonsuited plaintiff, - 1 with costs, on the ground that the } ' question of title was involved in. ijthecaae, and that, therefore, the Eesii\

•—Smith v. Clegg, claim £W. Mr Byrne for plaintiff; Mr Stringer for defendant. The case had been previously partly heard. The defendant had taken away and used a bull belonging to plaintiff. *Mr Stringer submitted that this did not amount to a conversion of the property, and that the defendant was not bound to retain the bull. Mr Byrne replied that the defendant's action did amount to a conversion, and that the bull had been so seriously injured that the plaintiff did not want it returned. His Worship said that there was very little doubt the defendant had been guilty of a very mean action, and there was no question that his action had | deteriorated the animal. There was no doubt that it amounted to a conversion of the property, and a very impudent conversion too. The special damages would be fixed at J£& t and judgment would be given for the plaintiff for .£l2, with cost3-— Hadfield v. Wallace, claim .£2B Is. Mr Bruges for plaintiff ; Mr Kusaell for defendant. This was one of two cases brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, and was for a commission on the sale of Klingenstein's Hotel. The other case wa9 for commission on the sale of the furniture in the hotel to the same buyer. Mr Russell submitted that the two cases arose out of one transaction, and therefore constituted one cause of action. According to Section 23 of the 11 Resident Magistrate's Act, 1867," theplaintiff could not divide the cause of action as he had done, and the Court could not, therefore, hear the cases. Mr Bruges asked for a little time to look into the matter, and the case was adjourned until 2 p.m. On the Court resuming, Mr Bruges l said that he proposed to take a nonsuit in one case, and proceed with the other. By so doing one of the actions would be got rid of altogether. Mr Russell said that if that were done Mr Bruges would be at liberty to have one case heard at once, and then to begin afresh on that on which he had taken a nonsuit. His Worship said that he could not go outside the wording of the Act, and must consequently strike the cases out, with coats, and one guinea solicitor's fee on one case.