MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10377, 5 February 1912, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCTT. Motoay, February 5. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.)

Drunkenness.—Two first offenders for drunkenness were each fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment, and another was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment, for having been drunk on the railway station.—Frederick Barton was fined 20s and costs, in default fourteen days' imprisonment, for having procured liquor during the currency of a prohibition order. He was convicted on a drunkenness charge. Drink and Language.—James Crowley admitted having been drunk and having used obseone language in a publio place. He had been found on the river bank lying drunk on methylated spirits and calling out obscenities. He was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for having used the obscene language, and was convicted on the other charge. A Woman's Trials.—Mary Scott, who was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment, for having been drunk, pleaded in answer to a vagrancy charge that she had been unable to obtain board and lodging in the city. The Magistrate remarked that if she was drunk there was no wonder that the hotels had declined to accommodate her. The vagrancy charge was dismissed.

After Twenty-eight Years.—Margaret fles, alias Thomas, alias M'Donftld, whoso Police Court experience dates back to 1.884, appeared for her ninety-second conviction. Tn answer to a charge that she was an idle and disorderly person without lawful means of support, she pleaded that she had only' been out of the.Samaritan Home a few weeks. Continuing, she declared that she was harried from pillar to post, but admitted graciously that it was her own fault, and was due to the company she kept. The Magistrate, in response to her appeals for another chance, gave her a strongly worded warning and convicted and discharged her. Judgment by Defaflt.—ln each of the following cases judgment with costs was entered for the plaintiff hv default:—Samuel Ward (Mr Cuningham) v. James Thomas Ward, £5 6s; Annie Ford (Mr Cuningham) v. C. H. Young, £3 9s; Cooper and Duncan, Ltd. (Mr Cuningham) v. R. Stevens, £6 ss; Archer and Halliburton (Mr Hunter) v. W. Morris, £1 8s; F. W. Trotter (Mr Mosley) v. Patrick Brosnahan, £3 4s lOd; W. Harvey- (Mr Alpers) v. F. Falloon, £3 10s; F. Grant (Mr Alpers) v. R. S. Sutherland, £2 15s 6d; James Pegley (Mr Moslev) v. Mrs J. T. Douglas. £2 lis 3d; A. Billens (Mr Mosley) v! W. C. Quipnell, £9 12s fid; Ford and Mirams v. W. T. Morris, £8 4s 8d; Motor Import Co., Ltd. (Mr Cuningham), v James Walders, £74 9s 8d; same v. Wilkin and Andrews, £l9 lis 9d; same v. R. Scholtz, £6 6s lOd; Green and Co. (Mr Dougail) v. W. Cossgrove, £ls 10s 4d ; Adams, Ltd. (Mr Cuningham), v. Amos Bird, £2 10s. A Collision.—James Welch Maxwell (Mr Dougail) claimed £ls from Harold York (Mr Johnston) as damages for injuries received in an accident between a motor-car and a cycle on tho Sea View Road, New Brighton, on September 25. Robert Thomas Lees said that he was attracted by the crash of the collision, and ran out of his shop to see the boy on the ground before the car, which was standing on its wrong side. The driver of the car was picking the broken glass from the wind shield, and then, after ordering the boy roughly to removo his bicycle, drove on to tho hotel. Later he saw the car returning from the hotel, and again it was on the wrong side of k the road. The wheel marks showed that before the accident the car had been on its wrong side of the road within eighteen inches of the side channel. There was a tram trailer standing on the line, but lie did not think that made it necessary to drive motor-cars on the wrong side so as to _avoid children, who were usually play'ing about the trailers. Constable Rowe said that the wheel marks where the accident occurred were within four feet of the footnath. Owing to tlie slope of the road it was almost impossible for the cyclist to get past the car. James . Maxwell, aged fifteen years, said that he passed one motor-car and then the second disappeared suddenly from behind the standing trailer. He turned to the left, and then the car went in tho same direction so he turned back, but a collision resulted. For the defence it was stated bv Rhodes, a motorist, that the boy Maxwell had, been riding, with his head lowered at the rate of ten miles an hour. He contended that the safest course for a ■motorist was to drive on the right hand Ride in passing the standing trailer. Tlie defendant said that on the day of the accident there had been children about tiie trailer, and he had slowed to about eigjit hii]6B an hour. Tfe turned to tho right, the safest course, and then saw the cyclist, riding with his head down. On the return journey he had crossed to the wrong side of the road to meet Constable Rowe, who was \Valkmg on that side of the road, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £lO and costs.

Legat, Expex.ses.--R. T. Leathern claimed £lo lis Sd from David Haslett tor legal services rendered. The defence set up was that the solicitor had not obevorl instructions to secure an adjournment of a case before the Supremo Court. . 0. T. J. Alpers, in evidence stated that the defendant gave evidence before the Supreme Court and tho case was decided on that evidence, so that the adjournment for additional witnesses* would have been useless Judgment was given for the plaintiff for tho full amount, with costs.

P.vimocKiNT; .a.vd VETicnry.mr Siatvrrrs c J ,- (Mr Al P<?™> sued H. Si ». Kyle (Mr Mosley) for ;£2o*2s (id as rent of a naddock and damages to horse-clippers. The defence was that the use of the paddock was given free in return for professional services as a. veterinary surgeon. After hearing evidence'the Magistrate gave judgment for tho plaintiff for £l2 and costs.