MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7435, 23 June 1902, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

♦ — ■— ' * CHRISTCHURCH. . ■■ ' Monday, June 23. (Before Mr W. B. Clarkson, J.P., and Mr 37 Hamilton, J.P.) Dbtinkenness. — For this offenoe, two first offenders, who did not appear, were each fined 10s and costs. — A female first offender had a situation to go to, and the Bench convicted and discharged her, on condition that she came up for sentence when called upon. (Before Mr 8.-.'- Beetham, S.M.) .Default Case. — In the case of the Commissioners' Plat Gold' Dredging Company (Mr Williams) v. Join Staines, a claim for £37 10s, the defendant failed to appear, and judgment for the amount claimed with costs was given for the plaintiff by default. A Disputed Liability. — The Drapery Importing Company ((Mr Izard) claimed from C. A. Lees (Mr Harper) £15 10s sd, the ■ value of certain goods soldi to Mrs , Lees, and delivered at the 'house of the defendant. The plaintiff's counsel stated that Mr aJidi Mrs Lees had 'had an account at the D.I.C. for- the .past eighteen, years, and that Mr Lees had been in the habit of paying for goods ordered 'by his wife for the household use. Some time ago the parties separated, but the D.I.C. was not informed of the" fact. The defendant . stated; that he had always allowed his wife an ample income for the maintenance of the house, and the debt in dispute was contracted wfiile he was away in Australia. Mr Harper addressed the Court at Some length, quoting numerous cases in support of hia contention that the defendant was not liable. Mr Izard replied, also quoting authorities, and his Worship reserved^ judgment. , A Damaged Haystack.— -Walter ißowntree sxied Twentyma-n Hodgson for the sum of £17, the value of a certain stack of hay. Mr Hunt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cresswell for the defendant. The plaintiffs story was that, in April, 1900, he rented <a paddock from a 'Mr 'M* Alpine, and reaped ai crop of ih*y from it. The hay was stacked in another .paddock, with Mr M' Alpine's consent, aod it was arranged that the stack should stand there. In April, 1901, M'Alpine let phs paddock to a man named 'Beadel, who sub-let it to the defendant. The latter turned forty horses into the paddiook, and; they eventually destroyed the stack. There was a fence r«ound the stack, but this was removed without the plaintiffs authority. For the defence, it was alleged that the fence round* the stack was a. very weak one. One nig'ht the horses "becaane entangled in it, aaid pulled it down in their struggles to get free. His Worship said that it was for the plaintiff to/See that his stack was properly fenced. "The evidence showed that it was not, and he must, therefore, take the consequences. Judgme&t would be for the defendant, with costs.