MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2102, 18 November 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

OHRISTOHUBOH. Wbdnebdat, Novembee 17. [Before N. Wood, Esq., R.M.] Civil Casks. —Freer v Union Steam Ship Oompany. Mr Perceval for plaintiff; Mr N alder for defendants. This was a claim for £3O, being the value of lost luggage. Plaintiff booked through from England by tho Orient line, being transferred to one of the Union Company's boats at Melbourne, and on the passage from that port to New Zealand the luggage was lost. Defendants did not dispute the fact of the loss, but pleaded nonresponsibility, on the ground that they had no contract with the plaintiff, whose remedy they alleged lay against the Orient company. Argument at considerable length was heard on the liabilities of carriers as principals and agents, and hio Worship reserved judgment till the 23rd inst. Ranger v Piokering, £2l, the amount of a dishonored promissory note. Mr Bruges for plaintiff, Mr Izard for defendant. The note in question had been made payable at the Bank used by plaintiff. Defendant had no account there. When plaintiff received notice of the dishonor, he notified defendant of the same, but did not present the note to him for payment. There was no evidence brought to show that the note had been presented to defendant for payment by any one. The Magistrate held this to be a fatal bar to the suit, and plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs accordingly. Bain v Proprietors of the " Echo." This was a claim for £B4 for services as reporter, &e. There had been two adjournments, and the case was now withdrawn on the understanding that it would be sent to arbitration.

LYTTELTON. Wednebday, Novembbb 17. (Before J. Ollivier, J. T. Bouse, T. H. Potts, and J. D. Macpherson, Esqs., J.P.'s.] Labceny.—William Smith, described by Sergeant Mason as an ex-detective and exbailiff, was charged with the larceny of a gold necklet, a gold locket, gold oross, an electro-plated knife, fork, and spoon, the property of Charles Moody Warde, of H.M. Customs. Mr Warde testified that the robbery was oommitted at his private house. He was staying at the Canterbury Hotel at the time, and the prisoner and another were the only two persons, as far as he was aware, who had any knowledge of the where abouts r,i the keys of the boxes in whioh thejjewellery was placed. He returned to his house on the 2nd of September, and discovered that the jewellery was missing. On the 10th of this month he was called upon by Mr William Graham, at whose house prisoner had been living, and in company with Mr Graham he went to the latter's house, and found the property in prisoner's box. In answer to the prisoner, Mr Warde said that besides the prisoner Mr Mitford was the only person who knew where these artioles were kept. He did not think that the jewellery had been taken out of its original box, and left in any other part of the house. The prisoner intimated to the Bench that he did not wish to impute anything wrong to Mr Mitford. He would also state for the satisfaction of the police that it was on the 24th of August the articles were taken, as he had it down in a note book of his. William Graham, called, said the prisoner was visited by him when he was in Addington Gaol for debt, and he acknowledged taking the jewellery, and asked witness to return it to Mr Warde, telling him at the same time where it was, and where to find the key. Witness did so, as described by Mr Warde. Constable Beaumont testified to arresting the prisoner on Saturday night in Christchurch. Before signing his evidence, Mr Warde said he wished to add that ho had known the prisoner for a loDg while, and had never knew him to do a dishonest action. He was not desirous of pressing the prosecution. _ The evidence was then read over to the prisoner, the latter having previously stated to the Bench that he admitted taking the property, but without felonious intent, and that he would have returned the articles before had he had an opportunity. He was then oommitted for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. Civiii Cash.—Nichols, Driscoll and Kelly v Draneflcld, claim £ls upon an alleged oontraot with defendants for recovering the wreckage of the Annie Ogle. Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Joyce for defendant. J udgment was given for plaintiffs for £llO3 and costs, inoluding counsel's fee.