MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2038, 4 September 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OH B I STOHTJEOH. Thursday, September 2. Oiviii Oases—Taafe y Stanton, claim £6, for a gun Bold to defendant; judgment for plaintiff for £3 16a. Greener v Murphy (M.), claim £2 2s, commission for procuring the •ale of property. Mr Mellish said that in the eonrae of the morning he had received an application from defendant, ashing that the case should be heard by some other Magistrate, because, on a previous occasion, he being on the Bench, had expressed certain strong opinions as to the veracity of Mr Murphy, which the latter considered gave sufficient ground for the application. The re* quest had been made rather late, and although several Justices of the Peace had been sent to, none of them were disengaged. If Mr Murphy still objected he could have an adjournment on paying costs ; in that case the attendance of some other Magistrate would be secured. After consultation between the parties, Mr Murphy objecting to pay the expenses of plaintiff’s witness, the case proceeded. Some time ago Morphy told plaintiff if he found him a customer for a house that he had for sale he would give him the commission named. •Plaintiff sent a buyer to Murphy, and the property was sold. After plaintiff had sent the bnyer to Murphy, but before the bargain was concluded, Murphy wrote to plaintiff withdrawing his offer of commission, and had not paid it. Plaintiff now sued for the amount. Plaintiff called the buyer of the property, who proved that the bargain had been brought .about by plaintiff, who always said he was to receive commission from Murphy. Defendant was not sworn. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, and one witness 10s. Duke v Grant, claim £4 13s 43, for wages as farm laborer ; judgment for plaintiff for £4. Barret v Stafford, £26, for wages, and Stafford v Barret, £4O, for damages sustained through breach of contract. Barret took a contract to build a house for Stafford, but finding he had taken it too low, gave it up, or it was taken from him, and the responsibilities wore assumed by Stafford. Barret now sued for wages for work done on the building,-and Stafford brought an action for loss through non - completion of the agreement. The matters were each decided in Stafford’s favor, judgment being in the first ease for defendant with costs, and in the second for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Judgment wont by default in Mitchell v 'Wilson, £3 ; Samuels v Dnnkley, £4 10s 33; Trustees of Morrison’s estate y Beeson, £8 Os lid ; Same y Belcher, £8 5s 4d; Same y Slade, £l2 6s lOd ; Gahagan v Bills, £9 Is sd ; Brown y O’Callaghan, £5 lls; and Alport y White, £1 7a. On a judgment summons, Smith v Lander, defendant was ordered to pay the amount in one month

Fbxday, Sepiembee 3. [Before G. L. Melliah, Efq., E.M] Disobeying an Obdbb. —William Patience was brought up on remand from Thursday charged with neglecting to obey an order of the B M. Court at Invercargill for the maintenance of his illegitimate child, his payments being. £lO in arrear. Mr Stringer, who appeared for accused, wanted to know by what authority the gentleman was detained. Jt had Deen decided over and over again that, except for a felony, a constable who undertook to arrest a man was required to have a warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest. It bad been laid down on one occasion where a man was arrested, the warrant being at the police station, that the police had acted illegally. There was not a shadow of right in the detention of the accused, who was prevented from making arrangements to settle the case by being locked up. If prisoner had knocked the constable down he would have been perfectly justified in doing so. [Prisoner is a very little man, and the last remark of Mr Stringer excited some laughter.] Mr Stringer went on to say that he claimed the discharge of the prisoner forthwith. The Magistrate said that when ho remanded the prisoner ho told the police to give him all possible facility for communicating with bis friends. Besides the contention of Mr Stringer, which was quite correct, he had received a telegram from Invercargill, saying that the lady who laid the information had since been married. Perhaps that fact might influence the case. Prisoner would be discharged, but as the warrant would be in Christchurch in a few hours, the interval bad better be made use of in coming to some arrangement. The accused then left the Court.

Sathuday, Septbsibbb 4. [Before G. L. Melliah, Esq., B.M.] Dehnkenness. Peter Bomulus alias Charles Brawn, who was arrested in Hereford street, drunk and disorderly, being now brought up, said he had not touched a droo of liquor for more than five years. Sergeant Morrico deposed to finding him lying help lessly drunk at 11 30 on Friday night at the foot of a telegraph pole at the place named. Fined 20a. A man for a first offence was fined ss. Labceny. —D. A. Alexander, charged with stealing a coat, value £2 10s, from O. P. Halbert. Christchurch, and cash, 6s, from a till at the Boyal Hotel, Lyttelton, asked for a remand, to enable him to procure legal assistance. The request was granted, and the case remanded till September 6th.

LYTTELTON. Saturday, September 4. [Before Joseph Beswick, Esq , R.M., and T. H. Potts, Esq., J.P.] In the Wrong House. —William Sinclair was charged with being found in John McKenzie’s house on Tuesday night without lawful excuse. Mr Stringer appeared for the prisoner. Sarah McKenzie, wife of complainant, said that on Wednesday night she went home at 8 30. Her husband was at sea. She soon after went to bod, having looked’ the door and fastened the house up. There was no one else in the house. Before she fell asleep she heard somebody at the window down stairs, and directly after a footstep was heard on the stairs, and defendant came into her bedroom and pulled her about. Took no liberties with her. In cross-examination witness said a party by the name of Johnson did not go home with her. She had seen him when out that night. Had had a drink, but was not under the influence. The noise made by the defendant in breaking the window and entering it woke her up. Sinclair brought a bottle with him, and asked her to have a drink, but she declined. Her husband came home the following night, and she told him what had taken place. She was nob in the habit of having visitors when Mr McKenzie was at sea. John McKenzie, husband of complainant, when called, asked what evidence was expected of him, but was told by the Bench to answer the questions. He then related how on a former occasion the defendant had come at night when he was at home, and had caused him, by a misrepresentation, to go out. Defendant had no business whatever at the house, and no right there. Emma Neilaon, a neighbor, said on Wednesday night a noise louder than usual was heard at McKenzie's house. There appeared to be struggling going on and words used, saying, “I’ll tap at the wall.” A. stronger voice said, “ Don’t tap at the wall.” Cross-examined—Did not hear anybody go out of the house that night. They have a few visitors at McKenzie’s house, chiefly men. Witness had heard gentlemen’s voices in there when Mr McKenzie was not at home. Knew by defendant’s voice that he was there before. This was the case for the prosecution. Thomas Wright, watchmaker, London street, said he saw the defendant about his shop after he gave over work, somewhere about nine o’clock. George Johnson, one of the extra wardens of the gaol, testified that on Wednesday night ho saw Mrs McKenzie behind the Gaol as he was going from work. She was drunk, and a man was with her. He (witness) took Mrs McKenzie to her home, as he knew she lived close by on St. David’s street. Mrs McKenzie washed for witness, and he did not like tosee her being pulled about by this strange man that was with her. The man that was with her was not Sinclair. He said he was from Christchurch, and had to go by the train. "When witness took her home she had not got the key, and ho (witness) broke the window, and got in and opened the back door to lot her in. As ho came away from the house ho met Sinclair and told him of what had happened. The Bench said the case would be dismissed, at the same time it would be well for the defendant to keep away from complainant’s house in future.

A Neglected Lad.—Samuel Northey, a little fellow about ten years of age, was charged with attempting to take money from the till in Mr Gibbon’s shop, on London street. The little follow admitted the offence, Sergeant-Major Mason said the father was not fit to control the child. He was constantly drank. The boy had been before the Court once previously, and there

seemed no alternative but that he be sent to the school. The Bench gave the boy a lecture, and committed him to the Reformatory for five years, and would consider what sum to order should be made for the parents to contribute.

A Yeteban Detjnkaed.— John Durham was charged with disobeying an order of the Court. There was £ls 18s of arrears on the order, to pay for the support of his wife and children. The accused had a long list of convictions against him for being drunk and other offences resulting from drink. The Bench ordered that he bo sent to prison for six months.