RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1481, 6 March 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHBURTON— To-day.

(Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.) POLICE CASKS Drunkenness, Disorderly Conduct and Using Obscene Language —Robert Wilson was charged with having been drunk; with having behaved in a disorderly manner, and with having used ob scene language in a railway carriage. Mr Branson appeared for the accused, who pleaded guilty—Constable Morten proved the offence. A fine of 20s or the alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment was inflicted for drunkenness, and for using obscene language the accnsed was ordered to be imprisoned for four days with hard labor.— James Franklyn, for drunkenness, was 1 fined 30s, with the alternative of three days imprisonment. civil cases. Ashburton Guardian Company v O. 1 Inder, claim L2 7s 6i.—Mr Purnell for I the plaintiffs. Judgment by default for I the amount claimed and costs. I Same v Walter J. Sykes, claim Ll 3 I 4s.— Mr Purnell for plaintiffs. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and I costs.

P. and D. Duncan v Quinton, claim Llß.—Judgment by default for the , amount claimed and costa. Friedlandor Bros, v Tisch, claim LI 10i. —Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costa. Wilding and Caygill v Mager, claim L2l ds. Judgment summons. Adjourned on the application of the plaintiff j, until Ist May. Leahy v Brick, claim Ls.—Mr Branson for plaintiff; Mr Wilding for defendant. — This was a claim for wages, a portion of which was disputed by the defendant on the ground that plaintiff had not started harvesting (stocking grain) until ten o’clock one morning, some considerable time after other men employed by defendant had started to work. Defendant had paid L2 18s 4d into Court.—Judgment was given for the amount paid into Court; plaintiff to pay costs 18s. I Mitchell and Turner v Fergusson, claim L 7, amount of an 1.0. U. given by the I defendant to the plaintiffs.—Mr Wilding for the plaintiffs; Mr Branson for the do--1 fendant. —W. Mitchell, one of the plaintiffs, produced the I. • '.U., subject of the I action. The defendant was unable to I write, but had marked the document in I the presence of his wife and witness.— Joseph Fergusson, the defendant, said that the 1.0, U, had not been signed as I alleged by the last witness. Witness had I. never signed the nor had he I authorised his wife to do so. T< He filed his schedule under the Bankruptcy Act, 1876, in May 1883. The debt represented I by the I O.U. was included in his schedule. llt was Mr Branson’s fault if the debt I was not included in the schedule. Witness’s wife had told him that she had signed the 1.0.U.—(1. Fergusson, the wife of the defendant, said that she had signed the 1.0 U. at the request of I Mitchell, without the authority of her husband. —The Clerk of the Court produced the schedule filed hy the defendant in May, 1883; it specified the debt repre--1 seated by the I. O. U .—Counsel having addressed the Bench, the plaintiffs were nonsuited. | Guardian Company v Mager, claim L2 j9j 6d. —Mr Purnell for plaintiffs. Judg--1 meat for the amount claimed and costs, I and the defendant ordered to pay 7s 6d I per week, after expiration of one month I from date. I Ashburton Cheese and Butter Factory j v Rickards, claim L 7 5s lid. —Mr Purnell for the plaintiffs, Mr Wilding for the defendant. Adjourned. The Court then rose.