MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2253, 18 May 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH Tuesday, May 17. [Before J. L. Lee, and R. Weetenra, Esqs., J.P.’s.] Omi Oases. —Pharazyn v Binney, claim £2O for breach of contract. Mr Izard for plaintiff, Mr Button for defendant. Plaintiff, a gentleman travelling for pleasure, deposed that on April 12th ho booked at Christchurch passages for himself and wife by the coach which travels between Springfield and Hokitika. O. A. Ulrich, the. Christchurch agent, took the passage money for two return tickets, and undertook to provide bos seats both ways. Plaintiff stipulated for these seats particularly, as he could not travel in any other part of a coach without suffering. To make sure of the places, he caused the clerk who supplied the tickets to endorse them as for box seats. After arriving at Springfield, plaintiff presented his tickets as orders to the coachdriver for box seats, but that person declined to give these places, which he said were already occupied by an invalid lady and her attendant. Plaintiff then saw the proprietor, who threw such difficulties in the way of the fulfilment of the contract that plaintiff and bis wife finally went inside the coach to Hokitika. Beth the proprietor and the coachman, however, promised that they should have the box seats on the return trip, but on arriving there plaintiff found that the seats had been engaged by and booked to other persons. Both passages were therefore made by plaintiff and his wife in the inside of the coach, and the pleasure trip became in fact a source of punishment. Ho certainly would not have gone in the coach at all, only ho had made his arrangements, and found himself at Springfield before ho knew he was to be turned inside, and because ho depended on the promise of the proprietor as to the return trip. He had paid £l4 for passage money, and his other expenses had amounted to £B. He now sued for £2O to recompense him for the disappointment and inconvenience he had suffered. For the defence Mr Button called C. A. Ulrich, who stated that ho promised boxseats for the passage from Springfield to Hokitika. His clerk had in mistake endorsed the tickets for box seats both ways. Alex. Binney, proprietor of the coaches, admitted the truth of plaintiff ’s statement up to a certain point; but said, if plaintiff insisted on it, he would have caused the sick lady to give up the box seat. Plaintiff, however, after some talk, voluntarily ogireed to ride inside. 'Witness did not promise box seats for the return trip; he only said that he thought there would be no difficulty jn plaintiff getting them at Hokitika. Plaintiff hod on his return demanded compensation, and witness offered him two box seat passages free at any time during the existence of the mail contract held by witness. Plaintiff had refused the offer, Mr Button addressed the Bench, quoting authorities on the subject of damages recoverable for similar instances of uncompleted contracts, and argued that no claim could bo set up for mere inconvenience after the main obligation of a contract had been fulfilled. Mr Izard replied. The Bench thought the evidence showed that plaintiff had voluntarily given up his seats on the outward trip, whereas ho should have declined to proceed at all, but that there had been a clear undertaking on the part of the proprietor for the return trip, which had not been fulfilled,

and on account of which compensation was fairly recoverable. Judgment for plaintiS for £5 and costa, with solicitor's fee, in all £7. Mitchell v Liddel, claim £3. Plaintiff, a domestic servant, had deposited her personal effects with defendant, who keeps a registry office. Ho obtained for her two situations, for which ho charged 20j, and on plaintiff’s demurring, detained the things. The action was brought for their recovery, or for their _ value, as above. Judgment for the restoration of the articles forthwith or payment of amount claimed with costs. Lloyd v Baine was a somewhat similar case. Defendant refused to deliver plaintiff’s luggage until a claim for board and lodging had been paid. Plaintiff valued the goods detained at £6 15s, Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff. Defendant was ordered to give up the luggage within twenty • four hours, or pay their value. Solicitor's fee and costs were allowed. Jacobsen v Staples, £lO, for architect’s charges on the building of a house, advertising for tenders, &c. Defendant dioputed the charge £2 for advertising, but it wae proved to be reasonable and customary. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount with costs. Marks v McKenzie, claim £lO on a dishonored vrom'B- - note ; judgment for plaintiff with costs. City Council v Hobson, £1 6s 6d, v Donaldson, £1 6t 61, were claims for scavenging charges which defendants all resisted, on the ground that they were wrongly sued, but judgment wae in each cane for plaintiffs with costs. City Council v Allen, £2 2s for throe closet pane supplied in 1879. Defendant objected that the claim had been unreasonably delayed, and that since the goods were supplied the property had passed into the hands of other parties who should be made to pay. The Bench, on the evidence, ruled that the pans having been supplied to defendant in the usual manner, ho was responsible for their cost; judgment for plaintiff with costs. Gregg v Harris, 13s, for timber supplied j judgment for plaintiff with costs. Judgments went by default with costs for plaintiffs in O’Connor v Griffen, 12s j Marks v Bailey, £l7 12s 3d j Morloy v Osborne, £2 18« 6d ; Brown v Crabtree, £2; and Leaver v Bishop, 3s 6i.

Wednesday, May 18. J. Nugent Wood,

Weatenra, Esq., J.P.] Malicious Injuby to Pbopebty. —The case, adjourned on the 16th inst., against Alf. Walter Wright, for wilfully damaging a house and garden belonging to Mr W. Wilson, was called on at ten o’clock sharp. There was no appearance of defendant, and Mr Oowlishaw, for the prosecution, applied for a warrant to issue for the apprehension of defendant. Mr Stringer, who appeared for Wright, said there seemed to bo rather unnecessary severity in the proceedings sought to be instituted. Defendant had evidently mistaken the time, and would bo in attendance shortly. Counsel applied for an adjournment for half an hour. It would be hard indeed to arrest defendant, and keep him in custody for twenty-four hours, because he had been a few minutes late. Mr Oowlishaw insisted, that, as defendant had ample notice of the time to appear, and as the offences with which he was charged were indictable, the law should take its course. The Magistrate said he did not see how the warrant could be stayed. Defendant might, after being arrested, procure bail. In the meantime, he would receive a lesson on punctuality, which would do him good in future. The case was then adjourned till next day, at 10 30 a.m., the Court to be held in tho old Provincial Council Chamber, a warrant being ordered to issue. The defendant immediately afterwards made his appearance, but, counsel for the prosecution having left the Court, his Worship refused to go on with the case. He admitted defendant to bail, however, himself in £IOO, and one surety in the eamo amount.

Failing to Provide. —Chaa. Teavendalo was brought up on remand from the 14th instant, charged with having deserted his wife and family since January, 1880, without having made any provision for their support. The police stated that a warrant had been issued about tho time named, and they had been looking for him ever since. Ho had been arrested at Opihi. Defendant said that be and bis wife had parted by mutual consent. Ho bad written to her after finding employment, but she did not answer his letter. He was out of work just now, but was willing to take his wife and do the best he could for her. The magistrate adjourned tho case for a fortnight, to allow him time to make arrangements. Burnham School Children, Jane Freeman, whose son had been committed on Thursday last to Burnham for six years, now appeared, and voluntarily offered to pay for his maintenance at the rate of 3 s weekly. A former order to that effect was made. John Isaac Newton who was required to pay towards tho support of five children, pleaded extreme poverty, and the case was adjourned for one month. If, at tho end of that time, defendant had means, he would be ordered to contribute. Bichard Golding, who had neglected to pay on an order of this Court, there being £1 2s 6d in arrears, was ordered te pay by next Wednesday, else a warrant will be issued. May Mitchell, charged with failing to contribute towards the maintenance of her daughter, said she wanted to take her “home to her own heart,” and wept profusely. The magistrate, after hearing police evidence, said tho child had hotter remain where she was at present. Defendant was ordered to pay 2a 6d weekly. LYTTELTON.

Wednesday, May 18. [Before J. Beswiok, Eaq, K.M., and J. D. Macpheraon, Esq., J.P.] Chimney on Fibb.—W. B. Shepherd, for allowing a chimney of his house to ba on fire, was fined 10s. Defendant pleaded that he had been in possession of tho place but a few days, but the Court was inexorable. Lunacy bbom Deink. —John Collins, who some fow months ago had a considerable sum of money loft him, most of which he “ knocked down ” before he was arrested Buffering from lunacy, was brought before the Bench, having been under treatment in prison. The Gaol Surgeon (Dr. House) said the man was still unfit to be at large, though the immediate effects of the liquor had gone off. He should have been restrained from drinking long before he was. Ho had gone about tho town for a considerable time in a besotted state, with a boy attending him, and it was likely a long time would elapse before he could be sufficiently restored mentally and physically to be set at large. The Bench remanded him back Jo prison for another eight days. A Teebpabb Case.— Forrester v Adams, claim for £5, for damages sustained by the trespassing of defendant on plaintid’s land, a part of Brdhchley Farm. Mr Nalder for plaintiff. Plaintiff said that he found one of iis cattle dead the day after he had ordered defendant off his property. Adam Chalmers, a neighbor, _ the day on which the trespass was committed, found a number of plaintiff’s sheep upon his (witness’s) land, panting as though they had been hunted or driven hard. Defendant admitted having taken a stroll on plaintiff's land with his child in his arms, and having a bull-dog with him. The Bench were not satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to connect defendant’s trespass with either strayed sheep or dead cow, but expressed a hope that defendant and others would receive a warning through his being ordered to pay 10sdamages, Court costs, and counsel’s fees. Civil Business. —M. Milburn v Hamon, £1 8s ; Same v Bennett, £2 5s 6d. Mr Nalder, for plaintiff, stated that tho claims were for expenses incurred in entertaining some of Mr W. W. Charters’ friends at plaintiff’s hotel, at Governor’s Bay, The first-named defendant failed to appear, and judgment for plaintiff was accordingly given. The claim against W. Bennett was ordered to stand over to tho 25 th inst. Radcliffe v Jarvis, claim £6 4s 6d; judgment admitted.