MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1429, 10 December 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBUAiO' FRIDAY. (Before Mr D Thomas, J P , and Mr H. Frie-Wander, J. P ) ALLEGED BREACH ' F GAMING AND LOTTERIES *C ; George Stevens And W. G Settles were charged with having at the Ashburton ruco course on T/iursday, sold tickets by which permission was given to have an inter at in a schema whereby money wa to b • g ined ; further that they did assist in conducting a scheme by which money was to be gained; and finther that they were partners in a s< heme whereby money was to he i a<ned—Sergeant Foiton who prosecuted said that alhough nomlnaMy the e were three o arges in realtty there rfss only one The 18th section ol the Gaming and Lotteries Act under which the case was brought, was rather pecularly drawn and this had necessitated the charge being laid in such a manner that the secured could not escape io a technical ground. Ser<e»nt fel ton further stated that Mr Stringer, who i ad bean retained for the - defence, bad telegraphed to him asking for a remand and he had no objection to this corns? bring taken. —The accused were accordin ly remanded till Tuesday next, bail being allowed in sureties of £25 each, and £l2 10s iu cash which had been deposited by the accused, to be held as guarantee for their appearance, when called upon. In the event of their not being able to find sureties, the accused obtained parm’sco (to make a cash deposit of £37 10a.

SOUTH RaKalA. THURSDAY, [Before Mr H. 0. S. Baddeley, R.M } CIVIL CASES. Durey v. feheilock, claim £3 8a —Mr Purnell for defendant. A set *ff for £2 11s 6d had been file ', and was altowed. Items in the claim were dhpu-ed and plaint ff did not produce any books Judgment was given f r defendant with cost* of one witness and solictors he. Shellock v. Durey, claim £lO damage < for illegal!} holding a hor?e —Mr Pumeil for plaintiff —lt appeared that Constable Black had . irsTUOtod Durey, who is a livery-stable k. eper, to take plaintiff's horse to his stable and give It a feed. When pla’ntiff went f r his horse the same night he offered Is 6.1 for the feed but he was not allowed to take the an! al away till s mu back feeds had been paid for. Piainliff had applied on several other days for his hors*. His horsa hid not been stabled for 6 years and had Buffered through being kept in. ud plaintiff had been unable to follow his ccoup#fon of pouukpeeper,—Judgment for plaintiff for £5 or the return of thf> ho se and £3 damages, witness Bs, and solicitor's' fee imd court fees.