MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2250, 14 May 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHBIBTOHUBOH. TnuaaDAY, May 12. '[Before J. Nugent Wood, Efq , 5 and J. P. Jameson, Esq., *J Civil Cases.—P. and D. Duncan v Osborn, £2l 18a 6d. Mr McOonnel appeared for plaintiff, who deposed that the firm, of which he is a member, supplied a double - furrow plough, and sundry fittings, of the abovenamed value, to one Charles Lake, of Bakaia. The plough had been ordered by defer dant, who said he would see plaintiff paid for it. After a long time, Lake having failed to pay for the plough, application was made to defondant, who repudiated all responsibility, and he was now sued as guarantor. Defendant swore that he earned tho order from Lake to plaintiff merely as messenger. He had no interest iu the plough, ~ and never attempted to assume any responsibility. Plaintiff, re-examined, produced memorandum of the order, also notes of a conversation with defendant, after it was found that Lake had no intention of paying. Defendant then admitted that he had taken the responsibility. His Worship said the balance of tho little evidence adduced was in favor or tho plaintiff. It certainly seemed hard to make defendant pay for tho plough, but it seemed that plaintiff believed in the guarantee, and would not have supplied the plough to Lake without it. Judgment would be for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs, but execution would be stayed for ten days to give time for defendant to hnng his action against Lake, who certainly should be made to pay. Solicitor’s foe and expenses of one witness were allowed, Two cases were hoard in which a large number of Chinamen were concerned. They occupied the Court the greater part of the day, but the proceedings were so confused that no attempt can be made of reporting them ; Mr Thomas and Mr Joyce conducted the cases of the parties, the former obtaining a verdict in both. Gumour v Rennet and Borman, claim £3 16s for non-fulfilment of contract and damages done to crops by straying horses ; Mr Button appeared for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendants. Judgment for defendants, with coats. Judgment was for plaintiff in Crowe and Co. v Grindrod. £2 7s 9J, and went by default for plaintiffs in Sydenham Borough Council v Bates, £3 13s 4d ; Bonuington v Suker, £3 6a sid: Same v Carter, £3 8s 8d ; Percy v Buckingham, £4 6s 6d; Trustee in Gees Estate v Collier, £3 I2s ; Some v Saboy, £3 17s; Beece v Heath, £ll 3s 7d ; Holly v Murphy, £4 7s ; Battley v Bailey, £3 He, and Hazelhorsc v Biroh, £2 4s 3d.

Satubday, May 14. [Before R. Westenra, Esq., J.P.I Dbunkbnnebs. —W. H. Strange, for this offence, was fined ss. For first offences of tho same kind two men were fined 5s each. At.ttmhti House Stealing. William Smith was brought up charged with stealing a horse from Alex. Campbell, of Rangiora. Detective O’Connor deposed that he hud traced the horse, which had been stolen a long time ago, through the hands of several persons, amongst whom was a Wm. Smith, who was known to have sold tho horse. He had reason to believe that prisoner was the man. Sergeant Morice said _ that he depended upon one Denison for the identification of prisoner. Denison resided at Rotherham on the Waian river. He asked for a remand for a week to procure Denison’s attendance at Rangiora, where it was proposed to send the case to be dealt with. Accused here strongly protested that he knew nothing of tho stealing of the horse, and, pointing out tho weakness of the evidence against him, complained bitterly of having been looked up the previous night, and of _ the prospect there seemed to bo of bis stopping a week in a gaol, whilst the police hunted up a man of whom he had never heard before. His Worship said it did seem rather hard, bub, as the police maintained that they had good grounds for their suspicions, he was constrained to remand as requested. He, however, would accept a light bail. Accused said ho had no friends at all in town, and, if remanded, must go to gaol. It was finally arranged to allow accused to go on entering into a recognizance for £2O, and undertaking to report himself every morning to the police. The case was then remanded for one week. Failing to Pbotxdb. — Chas. Teavendale, brought up from Timarn on a warrant issued in July, 1880, was charged with having deserted his wife and children without leaving them adequate means of support. The police stated that since tne date of the warrant he had contributed nothing towards tho maintenance of his family. He was remanded till Wednesday next, Labcsny,— Robert Taylor was charged with stealing a vest worth 8», tho property of Arthur Heiry. The p.lDo it el that prisoner had been sleeping at prosecutor’s place, and on going away hod taken a new vest, leaving an old one in it its place. Accused said tho exchange had been made in mistake. As the offence hud been committed at Coalgate, a remand of tho case was made to that place for Monday next.