MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1914, 9 August 1888, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— THURSDAY.

(Before Mr 0. A. Wray, E.M.) j DRUNKENNESS. ' A first offender for drunkenness at the , racecourse was fined 5a and costs . Jas. Taylor, was charged with having i been guilty of riotous conduct while drunk . at the Royal Hotel. Fined 20 j and . costs or m default 48 hoars imprisonment. "> ( A^ fim was fined Gs for drunkenness A charge of ladecent expoflure against him was not pressed. UNREGISTERED DOGS. T. M. Jones for having m his poaaesßlon to unregistered dogs was fined 10a for eaoh dog. CHIMNEY ON FIRE. John Ranger was oharged with having allowed the chimney of bis house to catch on fire. Defendant said that he had had tho chimney eweept about four weeks ago. Case dismissed. COW AT lABOE. John Henry for haviDg allowed a cow to graza m a public street, was fined 5s and CObtS. CIVIL CASES. Ashburton Teaiplar Oo v Wm. Revell, claim £3 for call due on shares. Mr Wilding for the plaintiff Company. Judgment for plain tiff J by default. Baker v Vickery, claim £2 18a Id. Mr Oathbertaon for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Qaene and Oo v J, Yiokery, claim £3 2b 6d. Judgment for plaintiffs by default. Mitchell v Turner v A. Page*, olalm £5 14s. Jadgment 'for plaintiff.) by default. T. Price v W. Meddlnga, lnspeotor of Telegraph Department, claim £16. Mr Outhbertson for p' ait tiff. Mr P«rneUj iustructe-3 by Mr Marton for the defendant. The plaintiff had supplied a horse for the use of the telegraph lineman at Ashburton. After the Department had had charge o£ the horae foe aome time plaintiff received word to take it b»ok again. He decllped to do so, and on the fol? lowlug day the telegraph lineman used the animal. Subsequently plaintiff found the horae In his yard ; he gave no one authority to put it there. He now olaimed the amount that he had agreed upon with Mr Meddings as the price of the horse. — The defence was that an uc qualified guarantee of the soundness of the horse had be:n given, and the horse had not answered to that guarantee. In addition, it had been distinctly stipulated that the Department should have the horse on tilal In order to see if it would suit. As the horse did not suit it was returned to the plaintiff. A quantity of evidence was called on both sides. For the defence 0. A. Calvert, veterinary surgeon, said the horse waa thoroughly unsound and unhealthy, fie might bring £4 10a. — Judgment was given for defendant with coats, f>ft Sitting ;]