MAGISTERIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1850, 25 May 1888, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

A3FIBURTON-- FRIDIY (Bjforo Captain Wray, R M.) drunkenness: Mary PeHy alias Cunningham, acainat whom there are 71 previous convictions, waa charged with having baea guilty of disorderly conduot whlln drank. The accused pleaded hard for another chance. A fins of 20? waa Inflicted, In default 7 dapa' imprisonment CIVIL OASES. Dana and Stewart v Turner, claim £58 Is lid. Mr Pa neH for plaintiffs Judgment for {.l-iintiffij by default. F. H. von Sohoenberg v O.ias. Lawrence claim £20. Mr Purnell for defendant The claim wns for the " va'ue of work and labor performed by the plaintiff In thn manufacture of a. photographic camera front, and for. the benefit whioh defendant received through plaintiffs skill, Btndy, 'and ideas." It will be remembered tha>. the camera front In question was the aubj 50t of an action at the last aittiDg of the Ocurh, when Fchoenberg was ordered to give up its custody to Lftwrenoe. — PUintiff said that he had worked 120 hours over the camera, the greater part of the time being ocoapiei m inventing. Nearly all th<i work waa done at night. El a claimed 30] for labor, and the balanoe for inventing, He considered he wsb entitled to 3s 61 an hour for tbe time he w«a engaged on tbe work. The witness was oro?s-examined by Mr Purnell as to what portions of the instrument he had invented, Tho witness complained m a very personal way of Counsel "not speaking plain." The Magistrate said it wa^ evident the witness wps only humbugging and promptly ordered him to answer the questions put to him. — In reply to the Benoh the witness said tnat he Intended parfering a olalm to the Patent Officer for a share m the invention. — The Benoh : You do not expect to re paid fcwfoa do yon ? — This whs plaintiff's case. — The defendant, Charles Lawrence, stated the invention was entirely his own, and that plaintiff worked under hla instructions, and from patterns supplied. Witness Lad always been willing to pay plaintiff for his labor, and had offered to do so. The witness instanced several defects la the Instrument to show that the plaintiff knew nothing about it, aqd bo far from there being any improvements of Sohoeoeberg's he had actually spoiled It, and tbe attic) e was doit of no value to witness — William Bryant, baker, said that about five weeks a?o he had a conversation with Schoeneberg m a hairdresser's shop Schoeneberg said that he was making a oamira front whioh waa Lawrence's design, and the work m connection with whioh he (Schoeneberg) was doing. Schoeneberg added that before he allowed the thing to go out of the place he Would have a considerable sum of money or have aome papers Binned. — Janns Biker, cabinetmaker said between 15s and 20a would bo a fair remanerat on for the work done by Schoeneberg. — T. A, Gates and Robert Murray gave expert evidence, which went to show that the wcrk done was almost useless. — The Bum of £1 had been paid ittfco' Court by defendant as payment of plaintiffs labor. — Plaintiff was nonsuited with ooata. The Court then ?oso.