MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7728, 11 June 1903, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

1 CHRISTCHURCH. Thuksday, June 11. (Before Mr E. Jones, J.P., Mr W. Minson, J.P., and Mr E.Marshall, J.P.) Drunkenness.— Three first offenders were each fined 5s and costs, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. — Two others, who did not surrender to their bail, were each fined 103 and costs, with the alternative of forty -eight hours' imprisonment. — Harry Hansen, who came within the definition of habitual -drunkenness, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. ALLKGEn VAGBANCY.-^Ellen'Croton, an old, chattering woman, was charged with having insufficient visible lawful means of support. Sub-Inspector Dwyer stated that the woman lived some time ago in' a cave on the Sumner Road, and afterwards in a tent, which was blown away. She wandered about for some, time, until the Samarijian Home officials took charge of her. Lately, however, sh9 had been leading a vagrant's life. She was a victim of the chlorodyne habit, and was suffering from the effects of the drug. The Bench remanded her till June 18, in order that she might be medically treated. Illegally ok Premises. — Alexander Martin, alias M'Clelland, was charged with having been found by night without lawful excuse, in a coach-house, the property of the Christchurch Tramway Company, in Cathedral Square. The offence was prov- ' ed, ami the accused was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. (Before Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M.) Civil Casks. — In the following cases the defendants did not appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default for the amounts claimed with costs :—Hokitika Junction Dredging Company, Limited, in liquidation (Mr Flesher) v.,.Alexander Purdie, claim £33 14s 2d ; Booth, Macdonald and Co. (Mr Bruges) v. J. E. Barbara, £26 16s i same v. Owen Kirk, £18 15s 7d ; Merchants' and Traders' Agency, Limited, and J. B. Mansfield and Sons (Mr Francis) v. Catherine Davidson, £4 10s ; Merchants' and Traders' Agency, Limited, and E. H. Tate (Mr Francis) v. J. A. P. Baldwin, £4 14s Bd. A Dredge, a Delay and Dkmureage. — The Hokitika River Gold-dredging Company (Mr Stringer) sued George Fraser and Son (Mr Russell) for the sum of £50. The claim was the outcome of a case heard some months ago, in which the owners of the steamer Rimu obtained judgment for £50 against the Dredging Company for demurrage. The story was that tho (Dredging Company engaged Fraser and Son, of Auckland, to build a dredge, for shipment to Greymouth. The dredge was built, and tho company chartered the steamer Rimu to convey the dredge to its destination. There was some question as to what date the Rimu would arrive in Auckland, and when plie did, she was delayed longer than was expected. The owners claimed, and got, £60 demurrage from the Dredging Company. The. company alleged that tho dei lay was caused by the failure of the defend, ants to use reasonable expedition in shipping the machinery, and therefore sought to show that the defendants should be made responsible for the demurrage. For the^, defence Mr Russell contended that a settlement had been made which covered all penalties chargeable against the defendants, and the claim, therefore, could not lie. George King and Robert Pitcaithly gave evidence for 1 the plaintiff, and certain parts of the evidence heard in the former case were put' in. After hearing argument, •his' Worship reserved his decision. A Contractor's Case. — Albert Rueeell (Mr Russell) sued A. Hill (Mr Stringer) for the «urn of £24 2s 6d. The case set forward by the plaintiff was that /he contracted to build a cottage for tfio defendant at a coft of £180. The plans and (specifications upon which he tendered were not drawn up by an architect, and the plaintiff pointed out to the defendant that they were not complete. The defendant asked for a tender in accordance with the plans, and a contract was made t but when it was near completion the defendant asked for some extra work. A second contract was made for this, at a cost of £16 10s. The extra work was done and the defendant paid £6 on account of this", and the original £180. When sued for the balance he made a counter claim, on the ground that th« foundations had not been sunk to the proper depth. In regard 1 to the counter-claim, the plaintiff contended that the foundations were properly sunk, and even if they w«re not, the defendant bad paid for them without objection.