MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5489, 14 February 1896, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

• CHRISTCHUBCH. Fbiday. Feb. 14. (Before Mr B. Beetham, S.M.) Dbunkenness.— Two men, who had not been previously convicted, were each fined 5s and coats, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. . , , Sunday Trading.— Cecilia Margaret Merrie was charged with having on Sunday, Jan. 19, kept open her shop in Colombo Street. Mr Donnelly appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Dillon deposed that about 8.20 p jn. on the Sunday in question he went to the defendant's shop and saw it lighted up. Goods were exposed for sale. Sent a boy into the shop for a stick of tobacco, but the defendant said that she had none. Defendant subsequently told witness that if he did not take proceedings against her she would close her shop in future. Cross-examined : The door was closed when witness went to the shop. Edward Davis deposed that he went into defendant's shop on the evening of the date mentioned for a stick of tobacco. The defendant was behind the counter. Cross-examined : The shop, door was closed, and he turned the handle and walked in. ... For the defence Mr Donnelly, contended that as the door was :'■ jslbsed ho. offence" had., been .committed. His Worship said that as people could get into the shop by merely turning the handle of the door, the shop was practically open. The shop was lighted up, and ! the defendant was behind ,the counter ] when Davis went in. She would be fined 5a and costs. The Shops and Shop Assistants Act. — Thomas White was charged with failing to close his shop on Feb. 6, such day being ihe day appointed for closing in Christchurch. Mr Stringer appeared for the Inspector, who stated' that on the date mentioned, about 7.30 p.m., he went to defendant's shop and found it open. The defendant was behind the counter and witness met a boy coming out with four boxes of matches. The defendant stated that shortly before the Inspector arrived he went outside to pull down the blinds, and that while he was doing this a boy- came in and bought some matches. Defendant was fined 10s and costs ,£l ßa.— -Isaac Morris was charged with having kept his shop open on Feb. 6. Mr Stringer appeared for the Inspector, and Mr Joyce for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. John Lomas stated that the defendant was a cigarette manufacturer. On the date mentioned went to defendant's shop at 2.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. and found it open. The defence was that the defendant was exempt from the provisions of the Act. He was fined 10s and costs £1 Bs.— Adolph Schlesiriger, for a similar offence, was fined 10s and costs J2l Bs.' -;■'-.; : Miscellaneous. ■ — Sarah Clarkson for allowing a cow to be grazed in Linwood, on Jan. 29, was fined 5s and costs 7s. George Husband for leaving a spring trap unattended on Cambridge Terrace, on Feb. 3, was fined 58 and costs. -. William. Murphy, aged r fourteen, ' and Henry Brown, aged twelve, were charged with .bathing in the Biver. Heathcote, at Sydenham, between the hours of 8 "•a.m. and 8 p.m., oh Feb. 6, without being sufficiently dressed. The boys admitted the charge. His Worship severely reprimanded the boys and convicted and discharged them. Mrs Box for allowing a horse vto wander at large in SydenKam, vrae fined 5s and costs.— William Heenan, for whom Mr Donnelly appeared, was charged with having on • Feb. 5,. at Christchurch, obtained the sum of £3 from William Parker iby false pretences. After hearing the : evidence, his Worship dismissed the case. — -James Maine was charged, with having, i on Feb.- 1> assaulted Thomas Thompson. Mr Weaton appeared for the complainant. After evidence had been heard, the defendant was fined Is without costs. (Before H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Brockley Coal Company.— On Friday Mr Bishop gave judgment in the case Brockley Coal Mining Company v. Cor-, son, claim .£32 7s 6d. His Worship said: — "In this case the plaintiff Company seeks to recover from the defendant the sum of £80 for twelve, calls of Is each on fifty shares held by him in the said company, together with the sum of £3, 7s 6d for interest, making in all .£32 7s 6d. The main facts are, to a .great extent, admitted, but it is urged on,' behalf of the defendant that these calls cannot be recovered by the company on the ground that they are not made in accordance with its articles of association. Clauses 16 to 20 s , inclusive, of these articles set out in what way the calls shall be levied, and Clause 20 provides as follows : — 'Seven days' notice of any call shall be given specifying the time and place. of payment, and to whom the call shall be paid.' It is with the last portion of this clause that I have to deal. It appears that neither in the resolution by the directors authorising the calls, nor in the subsequent notices to the shareholders, was any person mentioned to whom the calls should be paid. This appears to me a condition precedent, and its omission invalidates the calls and justifies the defendant in repudiating the liability. I think this is very dear from the English cases bearing on the subject" which I have been able to look through. An objection was urged to some of the calk on the ground that an interval of not less than one month had not been allowed between them, so as to -comply with clause 16 of the articles. It is, of L course, not necessary for me to decide, this point, as being a minor one, but I wish to say that the objection is certainly sound. The case of Baillie v. the Edinburgh Oil Gas, Light Company, 3 C.L. andF., p., 639, conclusively settles this. Judgment is for the defendant with costs." Mr Hunt appeared for the plaintiff company, Mr Kippenberger for the defendant. Franks v. Shannon. — Mr Bishop gave judgment in this .case. The evidence had been heard at Amberley and argument at Christchurch. Mr Scott appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Cresswell for the defendant. On the case being first called the plaintiff did not appear, but the defendant and his solicitor attended, and the two Justices who constituted the Court gave judgment for the defendant, apparently under the impression (a wrong one) that they could not award costs to the defendant unless as following such judgment. At another sitting of the Court when there were two Justices, only one of whom, however, had sat at the previous proceedings, the defendant applied for a rehearing, and the application was granted. On the day set down for the rehearing the Stipendiary Magistrate was on the Bench, and on looking into the circumstances it seemed to him that, as the Magistrates who granted the rehearing were not wholly the same as those who gave the judgment, there was cause for consideration, and an adjournment for argument was made to Christchurch. Mr Cresswell then argued that the judgment by the Justices was void, the Act requiring that, under the circumstances, the case should have been struck out. After considering- the point, the Court was with Mr Cresswell, and held that the judgment was a nullity and there was nothing for the Court to hear, the logical result being that the case stood as it did before the judgment was given and might be revived by the Court, after receiving an application fixing a date for its hearing. Costs were not allowed.