MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 554, 28 March 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. f: Tuesday, March 28. , 1 (Before G. L Mellish, Esq, R.M.) \ Drunkenness, —William Calder, who on the day had been committed for contempt ofJCourt for 24 hours, was now brought up, and the original charge of being drunk and disorderly preferred against him. The evidence of the constable proved., that on Saturday night he found the defendant lying drunk on the brink of the river in Oxford Terrace. After being in the watchhouse for some hours he was admitted to bail, and appeared on Monday in Court in the state previously described ‘ The Bench fined defendant 20s. ' LYTTELTON, Monday, March 27. (Before W. Donald, Esq, R.M.) Drunkenness.— Alex. Collins, charged with this offence, was fined 10s. John Durham, who is separated from his wife, was charged by Mary Ann Durham with being drunk and annoying her. The Bench adjourned the case for a week, KAIAPOI. Monday, March 27. [Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., B.M.] Cattle Trespass—N. George, owner of four head cattle found straying, was fined ss, and 6s 6d costs. Width op Tires Act—F, Denton, on information of constable Haldane, was charged with using a waggon drawn by five horse*, with tires of Sin instead of 6ir, provided by the Act. The constable stated he had previously cautioned him, and a witness also proved the case. The accused pointed out the unfairness of the Act as applying to the farmers. It was possible that four tons could be carried on a dray, of which the width of tire was not called into question ; but directly the same load was placed on a waggon with four horses, the law required that the tire should be Sin wide. This width of tire meant an extra cost to a man like him of £SO a year. To draw the present five-horse waggon with a 6in-tire would require six horses. The Government might as well tax a farmer’s reaping machine as put a tax on his corn waggons. It was easier for him to use a waggdu than a dray, but he could carry quite as much on a good sized dray as a waggon. With a waggon with tires 6in it would be hard work to get about some fields. He thought the Government ought to have put a Width of Tires Act in force before the railways took up the heavy traffic, instead of now, when only lighter loads were conveyed along the roads. The Magistrate said it only rested with him to administer the law as it existed, accused admitted having been spoken to, and although it was possible for individuals to be inconvenienced by the laws of the country, in this case he had no other course open than to Inform him he was liable to a penalty of £5, but would be fined in the nominal penalty of 5s and costs. Any future cases in the district would not be so leniently dealt with. Larceny as a Bailee, —Samuel Corrigan, remanded on bail, was charged with larceny of a silver watch value £2 10s, the property of Thomas Gibbs, of Woodend. Inspector Barsham conducted the prosecution. T, Gibbs deposed on March 10th he asked accused to call for a watch which was being repaired at Fraser’s, Bangiora. When he saw him, accused said it would be done in a week, On the 11th he asked me what I would take for it. He replied £2 10s. Accused then stated he had sold it to C. Martin for 30s. Its number was 25088, maker Carter The watch in court was his property. Had never sold the watch, or authorised any one to sell it. Saw accused after this, when he promised to return it on March 25th, on which date witness saw it in Jno. Bailey’s hand. Bailey brought it to him, but he refused to take it. He owed accused money—about 20s or 255. By accused—l said on the 11th I would take £2 or £2 10s for the watch. I said I should be satisfied if it was returned. I had previously to the 10th said I would like to sell or raffle the watch. I engaged you for seven days’ harvesting, at 10s a day, on behalf of myself and Bailey, and it is not paid. When the police officer came on March 25tb, he asked if I would prosecute. I replied I did not want to. On that day I was get an advance on my corn, and was to settle with accused. The police officer did not press me to prosecute. He asked if I had given you authority to sell the watch, and I replied—“ No.” O, Martin deposed—That at Junction Hotel, Bangiora, on 18 th, accused offered the watch to sale to George Gibbs, and half sold it to him, when witness offered 30s for it; took it and paid the money. Witness understood the watch belonged to accused, or witness would not have bought it. A few days aftey T. Gibbs called and said the watch was his, and he (witness) was to take care of it. Harriet Martin, wife of last witness, deposed —The watch had been at their house a fortnight, when Jno. Bailey called for it. H. Greaves, watchmaker, deposed that accused received the watch. The watch was not worth repairing. By accused—You told me the watch was worth nothing, the cases might bring ss. Mounted sergeant Morice deposed —He saw T. Gibbs respecting the watch, and afterwards went to Martin's and then to Bailey’s, where he found the watch, and then arrested accused and explained the charge. He asked “ Who laid the informa? tion 7 was it Gibbs 7 I intended to give it up to-night.” By accused—l did not shew you the warrant. Gibbs did not give you in charge ; it was my duty to arrest yon. Accused being cautioned, admitted he got the watch as given in evidence, and went to Gibbs next morning and told him it was clearly understood, as he owed accused wages, that he could have the watch again, or what value he put on it, and he was satisfied with that till it was forced by the police Martin was, as he states, also satisfied. They were drinking at Bangiora when he sold the watch to Martin; and as he was friends with Gibbs, thought Gibbs would like to get a price for it. John Bailey, called by accused, deposed—Gibbs said he did not want to prosecute. Had heard Gibbs say frequently that he wanted to sell the watch. The Magistrate remarking that if accused had sold the watch as he stated, his first act would have been tb inform Gibbs; but as it was shown that'shch was not his intention, and there being also a previous conviction against him of a similar nature, he wouli| bp sentenced tp she peeks’'imprisonment with labor. Civil Cases,— J, S. White v S. P. Andrews, claim£l3 2s; paid in, £5 18s ; set-off. £7 14s; judgment for plaintiff for fqll amount and costs, the Magistrate considering from a telegram sent by plaintiff to defendant, that 12s a day was reasonable plasterers*

wages.W. Fraser v F. Pearce, claim, value of a horse, £l9 10s. Mr Gresson for plaintiff Mr Joynt for defendant. The plaintiff had lent defendant his horse to ride to Saltwater Creek. It was shewn to have been all right when it went away, and soon after its return it was found in the,, plaintiff’s paddock dying from having 'dranjfpwater when overheated. DefendanVaeounsel submitted that bis client was natrfiable as wilful negligence td-the horsjHfas not, proved while it was in his' chargef or that its "death resulted from any ; »fct of bis. Plaintiff’s counsel urged that two witnesses, one of whom previously ■i.* owned the animal, had noticed on its ‘■return frotn the Creek that it was sweating and done up and not in a fit state Ho put into a paddock. The law implied that where anything was lent without ... charge, the bailee was responsible to a -Vv greater extent to the bailor than if there was any consideration. The case was adjourned for a week for the evidence of the veterinary surgeon who had examined it. 0. Oram v J. 0. Roll. In this case recovery of premises let to defendant on a weekly tenancy, was sued for. Defendant held he was a yearly tenant for one house, which he left to enter another, on the same terms with the same landlord. The Magistrate decided that the first agreement was cancelled; defendant was a weekly tenant, and would be ordered to give up possession on Friday at noon.