MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4582, 2 March 1893, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBis^CHURGH.. ; Jt"" This Day. ...":.•:■■ W..^;-^' (Before E. Jons, Esq., and the Mayor -.of 1 Sydenham.) : .-;

DBUNKBNNESB.-i-Mary Moxhamvia/'Tery old offender; was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. I *-i-6 t amuel JohnSton was fined 10a and costs, in default fokftyeight hours' imprisonment. ' Laboent of a Gold Wa ( toh.— Edgar Gustavo Marek, ag"ed twenty-eight, "wsb charged with stealing, on or about Feb. 27, at Sydenham, a ladyV gold watoh, value £2, the property of 1 Mm James Wbitham, -Vof Durham street. Accused pleaded "Guilty," and said he was drnnk whan he took the watoh. .Chief Detective O'Connor said accused had not been very long in New Zei»lt>nd, and nothing waß known against him. ■ He went to Mrs Whitham's house, and findinjtno one Bt home stole the watoh, and< then ■took it to' a pawnbroker's shop, whare'he sold it, giving a wrong name at the time. The Bench sentenced accused to fourteen days' imprisonment;

(Before E. Beetham, Baq., E.M.) x Civil, Casks.^ Judgment was given for plaintiffs, , by default, with costs, 'ftr'the following casea: — The Farmers' Union, Grain, Produce and Finance Company (in liquidation) v. M. Anthony, £1 5b $ same v. jj. O. Brooke, £3. Mr Deacon for plaintiffs. Same v. Ellen Taylor, claim jBB 10a, for calls alleged' to be due. Mr Deacon for plaintiffs ; Mr Spackman for defendant, who stated that Bhe had not received' any notice whatever from the Company about calls or the date of allotment. Defendant eigned the application for shares, but plaintiffs could' not produce evidence »Howing the date when '/the shares, . 'were allotted. After argument^ judgment w&b reserved. — Sime v. B. Walla, claim.; 10s for oallß. Mr Deacon for jplaiiitiffej; Mr Spaokman for defendant, '^n 2 thfiF«ftse defendant produced receipts showing that t the calls had been paid, and judgment . was given for defendant with costs. —Same v. H. Bearmari, claim :JQS; for calls. Mr Deacon for plaintiffs; Mr Kippenberger'for defendant; The defence In thjgi case ■ waa Rimilar to that in the previous oase. Defendant "produced receipts, Showing that the calls had been paid, and judgment was given for defendant" with costs.— -Same v. J. H. Drury, . claim £1 16s for calls. Mr Deacon for plain- • I tiffs, Mr S packman for defendant, who Btated ' that another man signed hia name on,' the application form. - Defendant had no intention of applying for shares and he had not received any notice from the ( Company stating that he was liable for the calls. Judgment was given for defendant with costs. — Same v. M. Marks, claim JBl los for callß. Mr Deaoon for plaintiffs. Mr Spaceman for defendant. In this case defendant said he fead' nfot reoeived any notice that the ' calls were' due. Judgment' was reserved.— Sam^ v.' H. Zimmerman, claim £1 15b, for Oslls. Mr Deacon for plaintiff?, Mr Spackman for defendant. The ' defenoe in ithiscase was that ' there waß no evidence to show tne : date of allotment. Judgment was" reserved. A large number of loaees were adjourned till March 16.