MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2161, 28 January 1881, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. XnTTBSDAY, jANtTABY 27. fßefore R, Westenra and J. E, Parker, Ecqs., J.P.’s.J Civil Oasbb.—Parker and Williams v Nutt, £3 16s, for services as bailiff. Mr Holmes appeared for plaintiffs ; defendant did not appear. Mr Holmes said that at the last moment defendant had forwarded a cheque for the amount, but bad done it in a peculiarly aggravating manner. The cheque ran thus—“ Pay * Swindle’ or bearer, &o.” Ho should now ask for judgment. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs, solicitor’s foe £1» Is, and expenses of one witness. Lowe v Burgess, £2 9s 7d, for rent, Mr Salter for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. The object of this suit was the ejectment of the defendant. It appeared that plaintiff, a tenant of the Church Property Trustees, sublet part—ten acreß —of his laud to defendant, whoso tenancy was to terminate with the expiry of the lease held hy plaintiff, a period stated in the agreement as about December, 1879. It was afterwards found the main lease did not expire till December, 1880. Defendant was not disturbed in his occupation, and paid his rent as usual until lately, when a notice was served on him to quit at the expiration of twenty-one days, he refused and the present action was brought. Mr Salter insisted that the defendant knew that Lowe’s lease did not expire till the last date named, and submitted that as ho had been on the land on sufferance only since his own agreement ran out, ho was now bound to quit when required. Mr Stringer, for defendant, brought evidence to show that defendant knew nothing more of the time of the expiry of Lowe’s lease than he learned from the notice to quit in which it was stated. He believed that it ended and had been renewed on December, 1879, and finding hamself undisturbed, he paid his rent as usual and put crops in, which were yet in the ground. Further, ho had applied for an extension of lease in April last, and plaintiff had told him he would lot him know whether he would give it or not. The evidence of Mrs Lowe boro out the last statement. There never had been any arrangement to renew, but he contended that the acceptance of rent entitled defendant to the benefit of the terms in bis first agreement, which included the giving of six months’ notice to quit. The Bench agreed with Mr Stringer, and gave judgment for defendant with costs. If he was still required to quit, he was to receive six months’ notice, dating from the next time" of payment mentioned in the agreement. In Pepperell v Robinson, £lO 19b 2d, defendant was ordered to pay the amount at the rate of £2 monthly- In Baird and Co. v Hartnall, £2 15s, defendant to pay at 5s a week. Judgments were for plaintiffs by default in Mills v Heston, £4 16s 5 Pedler v Partridge, 15s ; Lever v Leathern, £1 18s ; and Baird and Co. v Horsfield, 2s 6i.

Friday, January 28. [Before Q-. L. Lee, B. Weetenra, and L. E. Nathan, Esqs., J.P.’s.] Drunkenness. Mary Kennedy, alms Wallace, was fined ss. For first offences two men were fined sa. A case against a man for drunkenness and indecent exposure broke down, as the only witness, a little girl, failed to identify the prisoner as the offender.

LYTTELTON. Friday, January 2S. [Before Joseph Beswiok, Esq., E.M.J Larceny. —Harry Potter was charged as a bailee with feloniously stealing a silver watch, the property ef John Forster. Mr Joyce appeared for the prisoner. About two months since the watch was left at Thomas Wright’s shop to bo repaired. The owner considered it worth £5. In the cross-examination by counsel, Mr Wright said it was not on uncommon circumstance for .himself to use any of the watches left to be repaired, and had he known that the prisoner had the watch he would not have instituted these proceedings. Frederick Townsend, employed in the shop, testified that when the prisoner took the watch ho said he was simply going down the street. In answer to the Court, the witness said he did not look upon the prisoner as his master. Mr Wright always paid him his wages. After Mr Potter bought the business, ' Mr Wright remained as manage? of it. The

prisoner took no ao’ive part in the business. Detective Bain, of Dunedin, arrested the pn sonor at Port Chalmers on the 21st instant, and found the watch in his possession. The prisoner said it belonged to Mr Wright, and he regretted taking it. Ho said he was travelling by the name ot Harris, and he had a ticket for Melbourne upon him. His luggage was taken by the detectives out of the steamer Botomahana, which was then on the point ot leaving for Melbourne. Mr Joyce contended there was no evidence of criminal conversion by the prisoner, and that Wright was really the person responsible to the owner of the watch, and that ho had simply used the prisoner to get himself out of difficulties. The Bench expressed the opinion that the prisoner had intended to take the watch and not return it. The whole circumstances connected with the sale of Wright s business, and the loose manner in which that matter had been done, the Bench thought reflected upon other persons besides the prisoner, some of whom the Court was disposed to believe should be in the box as well as the prisoner. The prisoner was then sentenced to throe months’ imprisonment with hard labor. He was also remanded to Dunedin, for trial on another charge of stealing jewellery.