MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6887, 24 June 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTCHUECH. This Day. (Before H. J. Hall, P. Cunningham and J. Connal, Esq.) Drunkenness. — Three first offenders were fined 5s and costs. — Lillie Wright alias Thompson, was fined 10s. Embezzlement.— Charles Burson waß charged that, on April 26, he did embezzle £2 la 3d; on May 6, £1, and on May 7, ' jgl 15s 6d, the moneys of David Barnß, of \ Eiehmond, a baker. The evidence of Mrs ! Buckett and Mr Barns being taken, Mr Beattie, who appeared for the accußed, asked the Bench to deal leniently with him. Mr Pender said that prior to this temptation the lad had borne a very good character. The Bench remanded the accused for a week for a report from the Probation Officer, and granted bail in one surety of JBSO. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. — Sydenham Borough Council v. W. H. Messenger, claim .£6 8a 4d ; judgment for plaintiff by default. — Nekon, Moate and Co. v. Charles Earp and Co., claim £13 lis _d; judgment for plaintiff by default.— Mary Clark v. Union Steamship Company, claim JBl4 12s ; adjourned to July 10. — Dicken and Co. v. Charles O'Reilly, claim i 517 19s 10d; judgment for plaintiff by default. — Kempthorne, Prosser and Co. v. John E. Fraser, claim _G66 19s 4d; adjourned to June 26.— Sydenham Borough Council v. W. Wells, claim £5 13s 9d; judgment for plaintiff by default. — Naw Brighton Pier Company, Limited, v. W. J. Shaw, claim £1 10s; judgment for plaintiff by default.— T. N. Horsley v. John Sincock, claim £1 19s 6d ; judgment for plaintiff by default.— lsaac Allen v. Mrs Elizabeth Gardiner, claim 6s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff by default against the separate estate of defendant. — Emily S. Jones v. W. J. Stringer, claim j_3; judgment for plaintiff by default. — Sclanders and Co. v. M. Murphy, claim J522 10s; judgment summons. Defendant appeared, ability to pay not proved, no order made.— Herbert King v. Mrß J. Davidson, claim 12s. Plaintiff claimed for the value of olothes detained by defendant with whom he had been lodging. He stated that he engaged to lodge with defendant at the rate of 15s per week, or 2s 2d per day. He left her ! place on Thursday, June 15, paying everything up to that date. Defendant said there was no agreement aa to his paying 23 2d per day, and she held the articles

until he paid the balance of tbe week's board and lodging. The Bench pointed out that she had no right to do thh, and gave judgment for the amount of the claim or the return of the articles, which were returned in Court.