MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2241, 4 May 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTOHUROH. Tuesday, May 3. [Before G. L. Lee, J. Ollivier, and J. D. Macpherson, Etqrs., J.P.'s.] Civil Cases —Walker v Fox, claim £5 for the value of a dog. Mr Joyce for plaintiff ; Mr Thomas for defendant. Plaintiff stated that defendant's son on March 3lßt borrowed is the name of his father a valuable spaniel. It had been used for the purpose of hunting rabbits, and had not since been returned. Witnesses were produced who spoke to the value of the dog, and as to the promise of defendant to see to its return to plaintiff. The defence was that defendant had at the solicitation of plaintiff sent the dog out with his son for training purposes, the animal had, at the sound of the first shot; run away, a not unusual thing with young dogs. Every effort, at considerable expense, had been made by defendant for its recovery. Evidence waa given to this effect, and the Bench thought no liability had been taken by defendant, and there had been no neglect on his part. Judgment for defendant, with costs and solicitor's fee. Shannon v Harris, claim £l, for wages due to plaintiff's son. Judgment for defendant with costs. Gordon v Willis, £3 2s 6d j and Willis v Gordon, £7 12s (>d. Mr Joyoe appeared for Gordon. Mrs Gordon, a sohool mistress, undertook to teach Willis' children musio for £l2 10s per annum. Mr Willis removed his children from her tuition in the middle of a term, giving as a reason that she had removed her residence fourteen chains away from her first house, and the distance was too far for them to go. The Bench gave judgment with costs for Mrs Gordon in this case. The cross action was for rent. Willis alleged that Mrs Gordon had taken a house from him on a year's lease. She had left before the term expired,, and bia claim was for the period since she left. He produced an agreement to let the house to Mrs Gordon. The Bench ruled that she having and living with her husband, could not make any such agreement. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant had occupied the house longer than she had paid for, and he sued for the term thus entered upon, with rates and taxes. Mrs Gordon produced evidence showing that Willis had put the bailiffs into the house for arrears of rent after having given a written promise of extension of time to pay, and he had also behaved very harshly to her, spying he would " close her school and blast her character." She paid out the bailiffs and left the house the same day, the bailiff giving ber a receipt in discharge of all demands up to that time. The Bench said that on the evidence Willis had so shadow of a claim against Mrs Gordon. Judgment for defendant with costs, solicitor's fee, and expenses of two witnesses. Schott v Sohott. This was an action brought by a father against his son, under the following circumstances:—Sohott senior was an umbrella repairer and knife grinder. He and his wife are considerably over sixty years old. He had, by the joint efforts of himself, two sons, and his wife, in the course of four years, made a very good business, which brought in about £5 a week, and out of which ho had saved enough to buy a cottage and section of land. About eighteen months ago the oldest of the sons who was with him got married, when the old man, finding disagreements arising, drew out of the business. He gave up to his married son the shop in Lower High street, its stock-in-trade, worth £IOO, together with the goodwill of the business and all the household furriture, and took a retiring allowance. The son offered to pay him 15s per week for life, but he only accepted 10s. There was a grinding machine, worth £3O, which was not included in the tools, &c, given up. That was reserved for the younger son, who remained working with his brother. The payments were made to the old people with regularity for a while, till at last they appeared to be grudged, and when Mrs Sohott went to the place for the money her son's wife put her tongue out at her, and behaved very unpleasantly. The elder son, moreover, threw the younger out window, and he then left the former's employment, taking the grinding machine with him. From that forward, the weekly allowance had ceased. The arrears amounted to £l3 10s, which amount was now sued for. The old man had tried to earn his living with the machine, but being a sufferer from sciatica, could not. The evidence of of the elder Sohotts, and the younger son gave the abova particulars. The defence was that the 10s per week was not secured by written agreement, and under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds could not be recovered. Mr Joyce, on that ground, applied for a nonsuit. The Bench decided to hear further evidence. Defondant, an elder brother, his wife, and a son-in-law of the elder Schott, then swore in effect that the 10s per week had been paid as rent for the grinding machine ; that the etook in the shop and furniture left by the old people were worth very little, and the goodwill of the business nothing. They also said that defendant had been a good son, and had in reality made the business and kept the old people. The Magistrates remarked upon the painful spectacle of a whole family doing their utmost to stop the trifling annuity paid to the aged head of that family, whose only fault appeared to have been the stripping of himself in favor of his son and a stranger. The Bench believed the story of the elder Sohott, and gave judgment in his favor for the whole amount claimed, with . costs and solicitor's fee. Mr Joyce applied for leave to appeal on the point he first raised, viz., that the agreement to pay the 10s weekly being for a period of necessity over twelve months not being in writing was within the operation of the Statute of Frauds, and any arrears were consequently not recoverable. Mr Thomas pointed out that that the agreement was not of "necessity" for more than a year, as was shown by the faot that if Schott died before that time the poyment would cease. There was no term nomed, as was contemplated by the Statute. The Bench, after consideration, gave leave to appeal. Judgment was for plaintiffs in—Gow v Allen, £4 8s Id ; M'Olatchie and M'lntosh r Diepenheim, £l6 7s lOd, and Montgomery and Co. v Rissel, £4 16s Bd. Judgment went by default in Ah Ting v Ah Tong, £5 10s 6d, and Wilson v Dalzoll, £3 Os sd. Smith v Coleman was adjourned till May 10th. Wednesday, May 4. [Before Messrs O. Whitefoord, K.M., J. Ollivier, J. E. Parker, G. L. Lee and W. Inman, J.P's.] The Totalisatob. —Mr Whitefoord to-day gave judgment. He said that the majority of the Magistrates on the Bench were agreed : First, that the Racecourse is an open or public place within the meaning of the VagraEfc Act; but second, that the totalisator is practically a large open betting book, used voluntarily by the public, is more of a recording than a gambling machine, and on the present occasion was not used for the purposes of a game of chance. He further hoped that the complainant would appeal. The oase was then dismissed. Mr Stringer gave notne of his intention to appeal, on the point whether or tot the maohine had been used for gambling. Obstbitctino the Police. —John Riley, for being drunk and interfering with the police at the railway station, was fined 20s and Is 6d cab hire. For being drunk and < disorderly, M. Kennedy was fined 10s. i Indt/btbial School Chiidbbn. John ■ Home admitted having failed to obey an order i of the Court for the payment of 3s 6i per week towards the maintenance of his stepson ■ at Burnham; he pleaded inability. He was , ordered to pay all arrears before June Ist. i John Gilbert was ordered to pay 10s per week i towards the support of his two children in i the tame institution.