MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2113, 1 December 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHEISTCHTJEOH. Tuesday, Notbmbke 30. [Before J. IS. Parker and L. E, Nathan, Esqs., J.P.’s/j Orvrii Oases. —City Council v Metz, 6b 6d, for seavongering charges. Defendant produced a receipt which showed that the account had been paid. The representatives of the Council said the payment had been taken by some other person than the colleotors, and had not been booked. Defendant doeired to draw their Worship’s attention to the inconvenience and possible loss he had been put to by having to answer this demand. He had been stuck up in the street while in company with other gentlemen, and served with a summons for a debt which did not exist, and he had had to forego one or two business engagements to attend the Court to answer it. The manner of conducting business at the City Council offices must be slovenly indeed to allow of such mistakes being made. It was well known that the same sort of thing was of frequent occurrence, and ought to be by some means put a atop to. The Bench agreed with defendant in his remarks, gave judgment in his favor, allowed him 10s 6d for his expenses, and the Council to pay costs. City Council v Lily, 6s 6d, was a precisely similar case to the above. Judgment for defendant with costs, and 5s for his expenses. Perks v Rule, £2 14s; Mr Stringer for defendant. This was shown to be a partnership account. The Court having no jurisdiction gave judgment for defendant with costs. Kilburn v Early, £1 19s, claim for eight days’ wages as “ bagman ” to a threshing machine, was postponed for one week to allow a witness to be produced. Nashelski v Zouoh, £4 17s; Mr Wilding for defendant. This was a claim for the cost of a chimney-sweeping machine said to have been supplied to one Fisher, an employe of defendant, on the guarantee of the latter. Defendant denied having given the guarantee, and plaintiff failing to prove his case was nonsuited with costs. Parker v Egan, £l6 4s, This was a proceeding taken on a judgment summons. Defendant, when called upon to explain why he had not paid up as ordered, made an unintelligible statement. Plaintiff said that defendant had considerable property in houses in Christchurch and elsewhere, which was understood to be settled on his wife. He knew him to be one of the greatest loafers in Christchurch, who systematically refused to pay his just debts. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in fourteen days, or go to prison for eight weeks. Moffat v Smith, judgment summons for £2 18s. Defendant pleaded poverty. Plaintiff said defendant wan a man who followed race meetings with a gaming table. Ho had seen him at the last Christchurch races when holding up a handful of bank notes, he had called out to plaintiff in derision, “Hi! do you think that would satisfy the Birds.” Plaintiff explained that “ Birds ” was thieves’ patois for bailiffs. Defendant was ordered to pay off the amount by weekly instalments of 20s, or in default of any payment to go to prison for a week. Judgment wont by default for plaintiffs, with costs, in Hobbs and Co. v Evans, £l4 10s ; George v Alloway, £1 16s ; City Council v Campbell, 6s 6d ; Crowe and Co. v MoKerrow and Mann, £l7 4s; Ballantyne and Co. v McWilliams, £2 12s 9d; Cunningham v Rountree, 17s 6d; Liddel v Surridge, 17s 6d, and Klingenstein v Green, £5 3s Bd. Judgment was for plaintiff in McNeish v Evans, £6; Montgomery and Co., limited, v Columbus, £l3; Round v Butcher, claim £2 6s 6d, judgment for £1 16a 6d and costs ; B. Halo and Co. v Gammel, claim £9 10s lid, \ judgment for £4 10s lid ; Russel v Bvendon, £9, to be paid in two weekly instalments; \ Denham v Wilson, £8 4s, to be paid at 5s per week, and Painter v Garrison, £3 10s, to bo paid at 10s per week.