CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9238, 16 October 1895, Page 6

CHRISTCHURCH.

Tuesday, October 15. (Before R. C. Bishop and M. Bowron, Esq s., J.P.s) Drunkenness—A first offender was convicted and discharged upon the payment of costs. An Alleukd Bad Character.—Chas. Curran was charged with being, a rogue and a vagabond, having no lawful means of support, and having been previously convicted a? an idle and disorderly persoo. Mr Donnelly, for Mr Weston, applied for a remand until the following day. Chief Detective Henderson asked for a remand for a week. Mr Donnelly raised objection to this. After his objection had been beard, and Chief Detective Henderson had replied, the Bench decided to grant the remand tor a week. Upon the application of Mr Donnelly bail was allowed, accused in his own recognisance of £50 and two sureties each of £25. (Before R. Beetham, S.M.) Civil Casks.—Kaye and Carter v Canterbury Farmers' Cooperative Association (Timaru), claim £36 lis 3d, Mr Fisher for the plaintiffs, Mi Kippenberger for the dafeudauls. The action was to recover loss sustained through the non-delivery of a parcel of oats bought from defendants, who pleaded that, being agents only, they were not liable. Judgment was now given for plaintiffs for the amount claimed with costs, onthegroundthat the defendants were the principals in the 6ale. North Canterbury Board of Education v Goes, claim £81, for damages resulting from the failure of a drain constructed by defendant to discharge the water from the West Christchurch School bath. Mr Bruges,- for the plaintiffs, Mr Fisher for the defendant. Tne case was partly heard on the previous day, and being resumed the defence was gone into. It was that, under exceptionally difficult circumstances, the specification given to defendant had been followed as taithfully as possible, and that the work had been accepted and paid for. After hearing evidence his Worship said it seemed clear that the defendant was to some extent liable, and the question was merely for how much. From an unfortunate initial error in the levels the work could not be properly carried out on the plan followed. Judgment was held over. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with costs in Alsop and Son v Ellmers £9 2i 3d, Griffiths v Reddiugton £2 19j lOd, and McClatchie and Cj. v Smith lis 6d. In Gipes and Co. v Smith, claim £1 18a Id on judgmeut summons, Mr appeared tor the creditors, Mr Djnnelly for the defendant. Tne ability of the debtor to pay was not proved aud no order was made.