CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6487, 16 May 1899, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Tuesday, Mat 16. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Breach of the. Stamp Act.— Adam bhott was charged with having, on August 24, issued a document ■ for the payment of money without stamping the same as required by the Stamp Act. The defendant pleaded guilty* and was fined' 40s and costs 13s. . ■ Ax Alleged Illicit Still.— George Trip was charged with having, on March 13, made a still-head; and worm, intended and suited for distillation, without first having obtained a license from the Commissioner, of Customs. .Mr Cresswell appeared to prosecute, and Mr Donnelly for the defendant. On the application of Mr Donnelly, the case was adjourned till May 231 Drunkenness.— Two male first offenders were each fined, 5s and costs, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. . Maintenance. — John Barwood was ordered to pay 2s 6d a week towards the support of his mother.— Robert Goodeman Telfer, for whom Mr M'ConneU appeared, was ordered to pay 5s a week towards the support of his two children, apd also to find security in the sum of £50. that he would comply with the order.— John Hutchinson, who did not appear, was ordered to pay 10s a week to the support of his mother. — A charge against Grace Gibson of desertinjher child, was adjourned till May 23. Mr Cresswell appeared for the informant, — William Piper was charged with disobeying a maintenance order providing for the support of his mother. Mr Byrne appeared for the defendant. His Worship reduced the order to 2s a week, the complainant* agreeing to accept £2 in full settlement of arrears due:— William James Thomas Ayson. was sentenced to one month's imprisonment \v\th. .hars labour for disobeying a maintenance order, and was further ordered to find security in. the sum of £50 that he would comply with the order, ip default, three months' imprisonment. — Alexander cCharles Mills was ordered to pay 2s 6d. a week towards the support of his illegitimate child, and to pay £5 costs incidental to birth, etc. Mr Cresswell for the ccin phinant, and Mr Donnelly for the defendant. The Fencing Act. — Alfred Arthur Vincent v. James Allsop. This was a dispute under the provisions of the Fencing Act. Mr Flesher for the complainant, and Mr GressAvcll for the defendant. It was ordered ■ that the fence between the parties be in ac •'ordance with the notice served by the informant on the defendant, the cost not to • j xceed £3 10s per chain, of which amount the defendant was to contribute half. The fence to be erected by the inforjnant within twenty-one days. The costs of the action .r.ere to be borne by each party.