MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10233, 16 August 1911, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

CHTUSTCHURCH. Wkdnksd.yy, Acorsx 16. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) Dei:xßEx\i«a. One offender for drunkenness was fined ss, in default twenty-lour hours' imprisonment.—■ Patrick Cashnian, an elderly man, charged with drunkenness, was fined 20s and costs, in default seven days' imprisonment.—Thomas Gourley, for a similar offence, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, and u prohibition order was issued against him at his own request. -r-Mary Guilbert, who appeared, before the Court on charges of drunkenness and the breach of a prohibition order against herself, was convicted and ordered to come up 1 for sentence when called upon, but not to be called on if she should remain in the Samaritan Home for twelve months.

Alleged Theft.—Albert Leahy and William Edwards were remanded for a week on a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime. Bail was not asked for. Erkixg Cyclists.—John James Murray and Arthur George Lockwood were each fined 10s and costs 7s for having cycled after sunset without a light.Rewi Idiens, on a double charge of having cycled on tho footpath and without a light was granted leniency by the Court owing to the fact that he was only sixtsen years of ago. Ho was convicted on the charge of having cycled on the footpath and was fined f>s witfio it costs for having cyoled alter sunset "without a light.—-Robert Nightingale was convicted and ordered to pay tho costs of the case brought against him, 7s, for having cycled on a public footpath.—"William Gibson,. diaries J. Jones nnd Gordon Roxford Weir were each fined 7s and costs for having cycled on the footpath.

A Cap.kli-'.ss Contractor.—Frederick Rodgers was fined 5s and costs for having carried out repairs to a verandah without having first provided suitable conveniences to catch any material which might fall. A Fast MoToaisT.—Ellen Hall (Mr Alpers) was fined 10s and costs for having motored too fast ever a street intersection.

l T vattended Vfhk'lEsS. —Walter Tlnirlow, Charlie King, Charlie July, Frank Mumford and James Campbell were each fined os and costs for having left vehicles unattended in public streets. Swill ix the City.—John Moles, for having carted swill through the city after 9 a.m., was fined os and costs.

Tiißoron Drink.—Mary Jan© Betlike asked for a separation order against her husband, John Frederick William Bothke, on the ground of cruelty. Tho complainant said that she had been married to the defendant for over thirty years. He had cruelly ill-treated her for many years past. In response to a question from the Magistrate, she said that, the defendant's cruelty to her was the result of drink, which seemed to have " got hold of him " to such an extent that he- maltreated her now even when he was sober. She had no means whatever. Her husband was in work and made anything up to £2 a week. Sub-Inspector M'(Jrath said that drink was at the bottom of tho trouble. The Magistrate granted the order and ordered tho defendant to contribute towards bis wife's support at the rate of 17s (kl a week.

Tri-axcy.—Andrew Log go was fined os and costs 7s, for hating failed to send his child to school regularly, as required by the Education Act. William I ienery. on a similar charge, was fined 10s, and costs 7s. Ricskkvkd Jttdgmknt Dklivkhed.—The Magistrate pave his reserved judgment in the case of lies and Co.. laud agents (Mr Alpers) v. Richard Hall, proprietor of Belvue House (Mr Hunt), claim for commission, £4O 10s, on the sale of the goodwill and the lease of Belvue House to John Jones for £'l3oo. The Magistrate-! said that the plaintiffs could recover if ihey could establish 0 1 that thev had found a purchaser who had entered into a binding contract to purchase, and (2) that the defendant h.ad accepted the proposed purchaser. After reviewing the facts of the case, he said that he considered that the plaintiffs had found a person who had entered into a binding contract, for purchase, and who had been accepted by the defendant without any misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the plaintiffs. The question as to whether the defendant bad a lease to sell did not affect the position as between the plaintiffs and the defendant. That had been made clear by the decision in Cameron v. Venables (26, L.R, 518"). Judgment would be entered for the plaintiffs for £4O 10s and costs.