MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 70, 21 August 1874, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTOHURCH

Friday, August 21. [Before C. C Bowen, Esq., R.M., and Noave, Esq., J.P. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.

James Clark, alias the Brusher, an old offender, was charged with drunkenness. There were twenty-nine previous convictions against the piisoner, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labor. Henry Stanton, for being drunk, was fined 10s. DRUNK AND ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. George Gray was arrested for being drunk and illegally on the premises of Mrs Ashley, St Asaph street west. -Mrs Ashley stated that the accused was on her premises the previous night, trying the doors and windows. He had also used very bad language. She had never seen the man before, and he had frightened herself and children very much. Sentenced to one week's imprisonment. INDECENCY. Mary McA.uley, charged with this offence, and who had been remanded, was again brought up. The prisoner's father said he could not keep her at home, and had been travelling the country all over for her. She would st*y at home sometimes for a week, and then she would leave, and had nearly broken her mother's heart. The prisoner promised his Worship that she would go home with her father, if discharged, and remain at home. His Worship threatened that if she ran away again and misconducted herself he would send her to prison as a vagrant. Discharged. BEING ACCESSORY TO A FELONY. George Doig, arrested at Ashburton, was chargen with being accessory to a felony of thirty-six boxes of soap from a store in Montreal street. Detective Benjamin deposed to the arrest of th 3 prisoner on this charge. On the application of (,'hief-Delcctive Feast, prisoner was remanded until Tuesday, 25th August, to be admitted to bail on similar recognizances to the prisoner Jeffree. LYTTELTON. Thursday, August 20. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] BROACHING CARGO. W. Jones, N. Georginsou, E. Lloyd, J. Dempsey, W. Donaven, F. Chatterton, T. Hearon, J. Henderson, W. McDonald, G. Ellison, and J. Allen, seamen on board the Eastern Monarch, were charged with this offence, and sentenced to twelve weeks' imprisonment, and to forfeit wages due to date of conviction. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. John Jones, arrested by constable Emson, charged with this offence, was fined 10s, CIVIL CASE. Butler v Oram ; claim ,£4O 8s 9d. Mr Nalder appeared for plaintiff. Mr Oram applied for an adjournment until next Thursday, which was granted upon defendant agreeing to pay costs of day, amounting to £3 8s solicitor's fee, and 10s plaintiff's costs KAIAPOI. Wednesday, August 19. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and J. Birch, Esq.] CIVIL CASE.

A. Thompson v H. J. Wood. On the 10th inst plaintiff obtained an order against defendant under the 82nd clause of the Rcsisident Magistrate's Act, to gain possession of a house and land of which plaintiff had become owner by virtue of a deed of mortgage, and the defendant consented to this order being made to take effect on the 19th. The possession of the premises mentioned in the plaint not having been given up, the plaintiff now applied for a warrant. Defendant said he wished to show cause why the warrant should not be issued, and asked for an adjournment to be granted to allow his getting witnesses. Plaintiff objected, as he had sent notice to defendant's solicitor, Mr Cottrell, in time for defendant to have been informed of his intention to apply for the warrant. In reply to the Bench, the defendant admitted having received this notice. He then applied that Dr Dudley might be sent for. ■. On oath the defendant stated the objection he had to raise to the warrant being granted was simply that he was led to believe, when he consented to the order on the 10th, that he would have or rather DrDudley would have—till the 12th, if not to the 15th, to make the purchase of the house and land from plaintiff. Iu presence of Messrs Thompson, Cottrell, and Dudley, this was arranged on the 10th, and a letter to that effect.was handed iu from Mr Cottrell. It since transpired that the house and land had been offered to Mr Itevell on the Bth. The defendant therefore considered that, having agreed to the order on the understanding the premises were under offer to him only, his consent had been wrougfully obtained and the order should be set aside. When he (defendant) went to plaintiff on Wednesday to arrange about the deeds, he was told that the property had been sold to Revell. On the 14th, plaintiff told him further that Revell's offer had been accepted on the 8 th, or two days prior to the order being made. Kevcll called by plaintiff, said the property was offered to him on the Bth. but knowing that defendant had thought of purchasing it, he informed him that it had been offered for sale, and he would not stand in the way of his buying it up to the 12th, but on that day he intended to purchase it. Witness wrote to plaintiff by the morning post of the 12th, stating he would purchase it, as defendant had not stated his intention in the matter. Plaintiff was the next to give evidence : he said he had raised defendant's rent to force him to quit, and then wrote, about the Ist, stating he should have to eject him unless he came to terms in purchasing the premises. On the sth or 6th C. B. Dudley (defendant's brother-in-law) asked him to hold over the application for the order, and wanted to know on what termv the purchase could be made. On the St 1 Dudley called at his office to enquire if he would not sell on easier terms than for £3OO cash, when he agreed to take part cash and the remainder in approved accept-

ances, telling Dudley distinctly that, as the place was under offer to Hevcll, he could not sell to Wood without Novell's consent. This conversation took place on the Saturday before the Monday on which the order was made. Learning that Mr Cottrell was brought, to K tianoi by the defendant on the Monday to dispute his plaintiff's title he treated that as a breach of faith, and handed the deeds over to KevelPs solicitors, but still it was competent for Wood to have obtained Revcll's consent, and had the property transferred to hira before Wednesday, 12th. On that day he received Revell's letter stating he would purchase, and closed the transaction before he heard anything from Wood's friend, and the note which he received from Dr Dudley was that he expected that iu a few days' matters would be arranged for the purchase of the Hermitage. On the day the order was made and also on the Wednesday he told Wood that he must get Revell's consent to the purchase if he wanted to secure the property. C. E. Dudley was called— his statements corroborated those already made, adding that it had been expected Revell would not have made the purchase so soon as he did. and as it was understood he was friendly to Wood. The Bench said no reason had been shown why the warrant should not be granted. If Mr Wood had sustained any injury his course would be to bring an action against those from whom he had received it. Order for warrant to be executed, made with costs.