MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9322, 24 August 1908, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

♦ . CHRISTCHURGH. Monday. August 24. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Drunkenness. — Threo first offenders for drunkenness were each fined 5s and. costs, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment, and two who had been drunk on the railway station platform were each fined 10s and costs, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Indecency. — William Murdoch was fined 5s and costs on a charge of having been drunk, and was convicted of having committed an indecent act in a public place, and discharged. Obscene Language. — Dennis M'Grath was convicted on a charge of having used obscene language, ah<l was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour. He received a similar sentence for having assaulted the arresting constable. ■ Escaped from a Home. — William Vincent admitted having escaped from the Samaritan Home, where he was in custody under the Habitual Drunkards Act. He had previously escaped, and had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment. The Magistrate, in view of the previous escape, sentenced Vincent to six months' imprisonment. Theft. — -James Sweeney pleaded guilty to having stolen a saddle and bridle from J. August at Islington, and was sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment. Habitual Dhunkauds Act. — James Matthew Roger Jack was charged with being an habitual drunkard tinder the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1906. He admitted having been three times convicted of drunkenness within the past six months. The Magistrate warned him that if he appeared again on a similar charge he would be committed to a home for two years, and then convicted and discharged him. He was j fined 4-0s and costs, in default oni j month's imprisonment, for having dis- J obeyed a prohibition order. — Mary Friend, a young woman, was also charged with being an habitual drunkard. She admitted the charge, but i pleaded for leniency and aeked that a prohibition order should be issued against her. The Magistrate complied with her request and imposed no penalty. Judgment Br Default. — In the following cases judgment, with costs, was entered for the plaintiff by default : — Christ-church City Council v. William Fenton. £2 &s 5d. ; R. T. Leathern v. Fred Jones, £2 15s; F. A. G>ok (Mr_ Bain) v. W. Nicie, 9d : Chrietchurch " Press " Company v. J. E. Ashworth, £1 2s M; same v. H. Brown, £3 10s; same v. A. Campbell, £4 5s 2d ; same ! v. A. C. Lees, lOd : same v. A. G. Mis- j kin. £2; C.\ R. Wilson (Mr Harper) r. Ernest Wall. £4 5s id; Black, Beattie and Co. (Mr Salter) v. Angus M'Dougall. £4 ; Vine and Vine (Mr Cuningham) v. A. G. Wray, £1 10s; Frank Carson v. William Johnston. £2 12s; C. Pannell and Co. v. Mrs H. J. Brown, £1 15s. ' Judgment Summons Cases. — F. D. Kesteven applied for an order under a judgment summons against C. L. Walters for £8 18s. The debtor ap- , peared and was cross-examined, but the Magistrate declined to make an order. JunGirENT for Plaintiff. — The case Arthur J. Birdling (Mr Bishop) v. Richard Chilli ngworth (Mr Hoban) for the recovery of £16 for a horse sold by the plaintiff was continued. The defence was. that the horse sold was not bred as specified. The defendant contended that he bad purchased a horse called Lady Tracy, but had found that it was not the trotting mare of that name. The plaintiff callei evidence to show tho breeding of the horse sold as having been in accordance with the statement made by the juaintiff at the. sale. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount and costs. Adjourned.- -Cooper and Duncan, Limited (Mr Johnston), sued M. Armstrong (Mr Weston) for the recovery of £17 i'2s, due on an account for work done in connection with a wood-turning machine. The defence was that the work was not carried out according to instructions. The case was adjourned for a week to hlloav expert evidence to be called regarding the workableness of the machine as supplied by the plaintiffs. Music Lessons.— Charles Augustus Oakes claimed £2 2s from George James Dennis (Mr Dougall) for music lessons. The plaintiff said that the money was due in advance, and the amount he was sueing for was f,or the term ending in October. The defendant began the term and then said he would not continue. The defence was that the lesson givon and said by the plaintiff to be the first of the term was really a lesson that had been missed and was made up by the plaintiff. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs.