MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2090, 4 November 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHBISTOHTJBOH. Tuesday, Noybmbeb 3. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and G. L. Lee, Esq., J.P.] Civil Casus.— Baldwin and Hamilton v Bligh, £ls. Mr O’Neill for complainant; Mr Stringer for the defence. This was a suit to recover damages in the above-named amount sustained by plaintiffs through the alleged conversion to his own use by the defendant of a whale. According to the evidence Baldwin, while taking a walk on New Brighton beach, at 5.30 a.m. on October 19th, found a whale 60ft. long, oast up neaily high and dry. He forthwith affixed to the carcase an envelope on which was written his address, and afterwards, with the assistance of Hamilton, tied a rope to one of its fine, and attached it te a stake. During the day several offers were made to Hamilton for the purchase of the fish, but it was not sold. On the following day ‘ two fishermen gave Hamilton notice that if he did nothing before noon towards cutting it up they would do so for their own benefit. Plaintiffs did nothing, and the fishermen, who were supplied with boilers and tools by Bligh, proceed to cut it up and try out the blubber. They hoisted the American flag over it and have been working at it more or less ever since. Bligh, who gave his evidence in a very excited manner, denied any act of appropriation on his part; all he wanted was the bones. One of the fishermen deposed that they considered the giving of the notice, and the delay of plaintiffs, bestowed the rights of ownership on them, aLhough they had offered to buy plaintiffs out. Mr Stringer hinted at the possibility of Her Majesty, represented by Dr. von Haaat, claiming the whale as the lawful perquisite of the Crown. This proposition, however, was not entertained by his Worship, though it was noisily seconded by defendant, who about this time was firmly put down by his counsel. Mr Jos. Day, having himself sometime found a whale, was called as an expert. He gave it as his opinion that this particular fish would yield 500 gal. of oil, which would fetch as much as the vendors could get for it; nominally it was worth 3s per gallon. Witness s\id it was a “ right” or a “ black” whole ; ho did not know which. It was not a white elephant. Defendant said ho bud been eight days and nights working at the whale, and there had been immense difficulty in getting the oil. A great quantity of blabber had been wasted; what was left ■melt very badly, and there was some trouble to get men to boil it down. Anybody who would give him the bones and pay him bis expenses, might have blabber, oil, and all. Replying to a remark from Mr Stringer, his Worship said he had considerable knowledge of the customs relating to ownership in derelict whales. Mr O’Neill said that was fortunate, as the books said very little about it. After some discussion as to flotsam and jetsam generally, his Worship suggested an amicable arrangement, which was finally come to, and judgment was given by consent for plaintiffs for £7 10s, and costs of Court only. City Council v Severn, £ll9s 3d for scavengering charges. In this case defendant ■aid he was landlord of some houses for which the work had been done. He had been billed in July for the March quarter. His tenants left in May. He gave their addresses to the collector, but he and not they was now sued for the amount. His Worship said he was tired of talking about similar oases. In almost all of them there was a good case for appeal against the by-law. The Council had promised distinctly to have the matter settled in the Supreme Court, but had shuffled out of it, leaving him to work with what he felt convinced was in law a bad regulation. Plaintiffs nonsuited and to pay costs. City Council v Glanville, £ll6s for scavengering. In this case the Council included in their charge that for the pan of a tenant, although the tenant still occupied the premises. This was however deducted, and judgment was given for plaintiffs for £1 6s and costs. Grigg v Fleming, 13s, hire of a horse and waggon, carrying defendant and family to the review ground. Defendantpleaded overcharge; judgment for plaintiff for 5s with costs. Judgment went by default in Wagner v Horne, £4 19a; Same v Same, £2O; City Council v Roberts, 15s 3d; v Cummings, 13s; v Hardy, £1 Os 3d ; Lever v Lyford, £6 10s; Fletcher v Bolton, £7 ; Gabitea v Selfe, and Hubbard v Purdon, £1 Os 9d. By consent in Qow v Smithors, £3 4s sd, and Williams v Girdner, £6 5s 2d. Sfeggal v Palmer was adjourned till November 4th ; Sycamore v Eckberg till November 18th, and Batchelor v Hazelhurst till November 30th.

Wednesday, November 3. [Before G. L, Mollish, Esq., R.M.] Pawnbroker's License. —A renewal of license was granted to H. A. Davis, of Christchurch. Orvin Oases.—Judgment went for plaintiff by default in Rhind v Methorell, £93 17s ; Joynt v Bonnington, £l3 10s, and same v D. Le Comte, £IOO. Shaylor v Morris and Hannon v Sheen were adjourned till the 17th inst. Bain v Proprietors of the “ Echo ” was adjourned for one week.

LYTTELTON.

Thursday, November 4. [Before J. T. Rouse and E. Ronalds, Esqrs., J.P.’s.] Larceny of Money.— Annie Walsh, a girl of about fourteen years of age, was charged with stealing the collection box, containing about £5, from the Church of England Sunday school. She admitted the charge, and was sent to the Burnham Industrial School for one year and two months. Larceny of Oases. Three boys were charged with stealing three empty tar cases, •which offence being acknowledged they were sentenced to six hours’ imprisonment, and to be well birched.