MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7236, 24 October 1901, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thubsdat, Oct. 24. (Before Dr M'Arthur, S.M.) DEVAri.T Case. — In the case F. C. Raphael v. 11. M'Millan. claim £19, judg-' ment was given for ths. plaintiff by default. Judgment Svmmoxsks. — Christopher Smith (Mr Hall) claimed £2 7s 3d from Thomas Guy. on a judgment summons. As defendant admitted that he was earning 10.. 6d per dav he was, ordered to pay £1 ou Nov. i2l and .the remainder onDee. 19. in default fourteen days' imprisonment. — The judgment debtor in the casa Gerald Blanchfteld v. the Trade Auxiliary Company of New Zealand, claim £21 lis sd. was ordered to pay £5 in one month and £1 a month until the remainder -was paid off. in default two months' imprison-ment.--In the case Frederick Keppler (Mr Beswick) v. M. Barak (Mr Raphael), claim £5 ss, no order was made. Claim for Damages. — William, Jordan (Mr Beswick) clad-med £5 damages from Vickery Le Measurier (Mr Stringer). Plaintiff and defendant lived next door to one another on the Lincoln Road, and had been separated by a gorse fence. Defendant removed this fence, planting fresh gcrse. and putting up a temporary wire fence, without* plaintiff's permission. Plaintiff alleged that the fence had not required removal, and that he had been damaged by the loss oi the shelter afforded by ithe hedge to his milking operations. The defence was that the hedge hod been old, and that no objection had been raised at the time to the change. The Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff for £1 damages and 30- costs. MiscHiKvors Pigs. — Charles Jennings allegjd that his Earl}- Rose potatoes had bsen seriously damaged by some pig., belonging to John Breeze, and claimed £5 damages. There was a quantity of evidence given, but apparently the damage done had been very trivial, and the Magistrate dismissed the case, saying that it should never have corns into Court. Claim for Wages. — David Hartnett (Mr Mallev) sued A. G. Saunders and Co. (Mr Cresswell) for £2 10s. £1 for arrears of wages, a»4 : £1 10< in lieu of a week's notice of dismissal. The plaintiff had been employed in defendant's a.-crated water manufactory at 30s per week. He alleged that he had bsen dismissed without reason by the senior partner in tbe farm. Two witnesses said that plaintiff had been quite sober on the day of his dismissal. The defence was that plaintiff had not been dismissed, but sent horn? for other reasons. The defendants had paid £1 into Court. The Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs.