MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2177, 16 February 1881, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

OHRISTCHUROH. Tuesday, Febbuaby 15.

[Before G. L. Lee and B. Westenra, Eaqs., J.P.'s.] Civil. Cases. Maling and Co. v Hawkins. Plaintiff bought a mare from defendant, agreeing to give him him a pony and £lO for it, if, as he says, the mare was brought to him broken to double and single harness, quiet enough for a lady to drive, and sound. The pony was handed over, and the mare brought in exchange, but immediately after delivery she was disoovered by plaintiff to be lame, whereupon he returned her and demanded the pony back. Defendant refitted to deliver, and plaintiff brought tho present action for the return or value £l3 of the pony. Evidence was given for plaintiff, and defendant pleaded that no warranty had been given as to soundness. A witness for defendant deposed to the mare being sound when delivered, and Mr Calvert, veterinary surgeon, stated that she is at the present time free from defect. After hearing the evidence the Court thought that the mare had been proved to be lame when she arrived at the stable of plaintiff, and that a guarantee as to soundness had been given, the plaintiff, therefore, was justified in considering the bargain to be off. Judgment for plaintiff. The pony to be returned forthwith, or £l3, the amount claimed, to be paid. Solicitor's fee and costs were allowed. Mr J. S. Williams was for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. Gee v Mason, olaim £4 3s 4d, for rent. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Turnbull for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he let to defendant a house in Salisbury street adjoining his own. The tenancy was for one year, expiring in April next. Defendant bad left the house on January 3rd, and plaintiff now sued for the first month's rent dne since that time. Cross-examined— Plaintiff said he had not annoyed defendant so as to compel him to leave. There was a drain common to both houses which defendant's people had made so offensive by emptying slops and other matter into it that plaintiff at last determined to give the houses separate drainage. He had gone on to plaintiff's premises and commenced the work, but being ordered off had desisted. J. W. Mason, defendant, deposed that plaintiff's children had persistently annoyed his family, and plaintiff by stopping up the drain had flooded his yard, that was his reason for leaving the house. Mrs Mason corroborated previous witness. She deposed to the forcible entry through a locked up gate of plaintiff. Mr Turnbull, speaking in reference to the agreement, pointed out that it was not witnessed. As defendant admitted the signature to be his, the Bench overruled the objection. Mr Stringer said that defendant had no defence. If there had been illegal aots by plaintiff there were ample means of remedy. Tho rent for the term, as per agreement, however, must be paid. The Bench agreed with him, and gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs. Shave v Davis, £lO 10s 6d. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendant. This was an action for the value of goods illegally seised, and detained by defendant, a bailiff. It appears that plaintiff bought a quantity of timber from one A. W. Wright, upon whose goods shortly after distraint was made at the suit of Mr W. Wilson. The bailiff, from information [received, supposing that the timber transaction was fraudulent, followed it, and finding it on the premises of Shave, seized it, together with a tool chest and some cornsacks, all of which he conveyed to Clifford's auction room, where they now are awaiting the result of. present aotion. The case ocenpied a long time, and the evidence was voluminous, the chief points being as follows : Plaintiff stated he bought the timber for cash i rom Wright on January 24th. It was delivered to him on that and following day. The toolbox and sacks never belonged to Wright. W. H. Clements, a lodger with last witness, corroborated his statement. He had seen the box in Shave's possession at Timaru six months' ago. Mrs Shave deposed to defendant coming for the timber on January 29th. She showed him a receipt [produced] written with ink, for the money paid for it. Did not tell Davis that Wright owed money to her husband, who bad got the timber in satisfaction of the debt. The paper she showed Davis was not written in penoil. Mrs Clements corroborated this statement. A.W.Wright stated he had sold the timber and given a receipt written in ink on the 24th January. He did not owe Shave money, and the timber was not given in satisfaction therefor. Never owned or sold the tool box and sacks. For the defence, R. Davis admitted seizing the timber, &o. Thought he was justified in doing so. Mrs Shave told him that Wright had given the timber in satisfaction of an old debt. She said her husband would have no objection to the bailiff taking it. She pointed it out; the tool box and sacks were with the timber, and she offered no obstruction to his taking the lot. Mrs Shave showed him a receipt for 35s for the timber from Wright. It was written in pencil. [A long cross-examination ensued on this point, in the course of which witness first said he was sure it was written in pencil and signed by Wright, then that he thought it was a form of receipt, but was not sure it was signed by Wright, afterwards that he could not read it all, not having his spectacles at the time, and finally admitted that he did not know what was in the paper, which might hava been written in ink, he had only " an impression that it was a sort of indistinct receipt." 3 Samuel Barnes deposed to having told Davis that Wright had taken the timber to Shave's. He went with Davis to the house. Mrs Shave made no objection to the seizure; she pointed out the timber herself, saying it was given for a debt. Had not seen the tool box, &c, at Wright's. Thos. George, assistant to Davis, corroborated the statement made by his employer. William Clifford deposed to the things being brought to him to be sold. Their value he should say was about 40s. Mr Joyce, addressing the Court, said, if any mistake had been made it was the fault of Mrs Shave, who said the timber had been given in satisfaction of a debt. The bailitt had done only what he thought was his duty. There had been a mistake about the tool box and sacks, which would, of course, have to be given up, and if the Bench thought the purchase of the timber bona fide, he urged that, though that would have to be given up also, at any rate the bailiff should not be adjudged to pay costs, Mr fStringer commented severely on the evidence of Davis, saying he had undoubtedly first wilfully perjured himself, ' and when be found himself being put in a hole, he ehu filed out of it by contradicting himself altogether. He asked that judgment should be given for the amount claimed, the defendant to retain the goods, and concluded by saying that, under proper advice, plaintiff might have recovered substantial damages from Davis' principal for the wrongful entry and the very insolent proceedings he had taken. The Magutrates said they thought that Davis had no legal authority for his action in this matter, and hia conduct had been highly improper. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount olaimed, to bo reduced to nil if the goods were returned to plaintiff within twenty-four hours. Costs, solicitor's fee, and expenses of witnesses were allowed. Judgments went for plaintiffs by default in Hamilton v Smith, £3 lis 4d ; Baird aud Co. v Smart, 9s ; Tombs and Co. v Mosley, £lB 15s 3d; Pye v White, £2; Aitkin and Roberts v Briggs, 17s 3d j Joyce v Phelps,

£ll 13s ; Rsisohaber v Adams, £2 ; Wilkin and Co. v Rogers, £lO 19s 10s ; Stenning v flolroyd, £10; Powell v Dunn, £9 8s 6d ; AynßJey v Watson and McDonald, £2 5s ; Mason, Struthers and Co. v Hicks, £lßl9o 9 i ; and Mulligan v McLeod, £1 3s 6d. Hamilton v Smith and Williams v Gordon wore adjourned till the 22nd inst. Wednbbday. Fbbbtjaby 16. [Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq., R.M., RWeßtenra, and G. L. Lee, Esq.'s, J.P's.] Bbeach op Public House Obdinanck.— John Toovey appeared in his adjourned case. He had been charged with supplying liquor in prohibited hours. He pleaded, by his counsel, Mr Thomas, that the information should be dismissed, inasmuch as he had not been supplied with a copy of the plaint, as required by section 32 of the Aot. The first hearing had been before two Justices of the Peace, who remitted it for the Resident Magistrate's consideration this day. Mr Thomas, now being heard, urged the point raised by the omission before indicated, and as a consequence that the information must, a fortiori, be dismissed, because, by the same section of the Act, the polioe are required to furnish a copy of the complaint to the defendant twenty-four hours before informations under the Aot are laid. Mr Broham, Superintendent of Polioe, argued that it was competent for his Worship to deal with the present information under the Licensing Aot, the provisions of which, he said, overrides the 32nd seotion of the Public-house Ordinance. Mr Thomas objeoted to tk.is, and the Bench were inclined to agree with him. They, however, postponed their decision till the 23rd inst. Maintenance of Pabbnts.—John MoMahon was charged with failing to contribute to the support of his father and mother. Arthur McMahon deposed he was over seventy years old. He was a carpenter by trade, but was now unable to work at that trade. He hod been breaking stones lately, but that had now failed him. When he was able to work he had given defendant a good deal of money, which hod been expended in building a house, as ho understood, for the accommodation of the old couple after he was unable to work, but defendant had taken up his residence in it himself. Mr Izard, who appeared for defendant, said there was no objeotion to take the mother, leaving the father to be taken care of by the rest of the family. Defendant, sworn, stated that he had kept his father for a long time living in the same house with him and a brother until he had to leave on account of their intemperance. He had, however, allowed the old people to live rent free in a houso belonging to witness. He had only received very small sums from his father and brother. The Court, while making an order, warned complainant that the provision so secured would be withdrawn if any complaint was made against him for drunkenness. Defendant ordered to pay 4i a week to his mother and 3s 6d per week to his father.

Civir. Cases.—judgment went for plaintiffs by default in Manning and Co. v Gee, £46 16s 6d, and Johnson v Glanville and Co., £26 17s Id. The Queen v Marsden was adjourned for a week. In Millett v Travers, tho hearing of an application for a rehearing, was postponed till the 23rd inst. In the oase of Kinley v Steggal, adjourned for judgment from the 9th inst., a olaim of £39 16s lid, Mr Holmes for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant, judgment was now given for defendant for full amount, with solicitor's fee £3 3s, and defendant's travelling expenses £2 3s Bd. Ford and Newton v Culliford, claim £62 12s 9d. This was a case for adjustment of a current account, the amount really in dispute being £ll Bs. Judgment was given for plaintiff for full amount, with costs.