MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2238, 4 June 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTOHUEOH. Friday, June 3. (Before O. Whitofoord, E»q., E.M.] Civil Oases. —Avon Eoad Board v Lodge, £2 for rates. Defendant pleaded non-liability as not being in occupation of the property rated. The Magistrate said he should have taken steps to have his name struck off the roll; judgment for plaintiff with costs, Joblin v Hasseur, claim £8 14s 6d for board and lodging, and milk supplied ; judgment for plaintiff with costs. Edwards, Bennett and Co. v Shott, claim £9 19s 9d for goods supplied. Mr Joyce for plaintiffs. Mr Thomas for defendant. The case commenced in a somewhat unusual manner. Counsel for plaintiff called the defendant and his wife as witnesses, who in substance gave the following evidence. Defendant had some eighteen months ago carried on business as an umbrella maker, &0., from which he retired in favor of his son E. Shott, who agreed, in consideration of receiving shop, stock-in-trade, tools and business, to jlky to his father the sum of ten shillings weekly during the life of the latter. The allowance was paid for some months, but was then allowed to run into arrear, and the father eventually sued the son for several months' payments that were due. After obtaining, by means of the forms of the Court, some postponements, Sdott, tho son, absconded, after clearing out his stock, furniture, &o , and tho father took up the business again in the old promises, where he now pursues his former occupation. It was proved that on relinquishing the business in favor of his son, Shott, sen,, caused his name to be erased from the signboard over his shop, and gave suitable notice to his landlord and others. Since the son ran away various accounts of debts he contracted have cropped up, the present claim being one of them. Plaintiffs, by John Aitkin, a member of tho firm, and by their salesman, deposed that they wore unaware of tho business having been turned over to Shott, jun. It they had known that they would have stopped tho supplies. They bad opened an account to Shott. the elder, and the goods since taken from them by the son had been charged to that account. They therefore held defendant liable for the amount claimed. Mrs Shott. wife of defendant, however, swore distinctly that she had given notice to plaintiffs’ book-keeper of the transfer, and there was no rebutting testimony. His Worship said tho evidence was entirely in favor of tho story of defendant. Mrs Shott especially had left the impression of being straightforwardly honest; judgment must be for defendant, with costs. Mr Joyce stating that judgment bad been given before he had a chance to claim the privilege he was entitled to, asked his Worship to alter the judgment to that of a nonsuit, in order that the bookkeeper might be produced on a future occasion. The Magistrate declined to make the alteration, and ordered plaintiffs to pay costs and solicitor’s fee. Bonniman v Bussell was a claim for 9s for cleaning out a house, and for supplying throe quarts of milk. Plaintiff was a charwoman. Mr Stringer appeared for defendant. The dispute was whether 8s was too much to pay for cleaning out a house. Defendant thought it was. Ho tendered 5s in payment of plaintiff’s claim, and brongh j a witness, who, as a professional, said the work was only worth 4j. Judgment for plaintiff, with costa. Osborn and Frow v Patterson, claim £BS Is 6d due for balance of a building contract and extras; and Patterson v Osborn and Prow, £4l 8s for penalties due on the non-completion of the above-men-tioned contract. Mr MoOonnel appeared for Patterson, Mr Stringer for the others. These were cross actions. After lengthy evidence, judgment was given to Osborn and Frow for £7O 11s 6d and costs, and for Patterson for £2O 18s and costs. White v Rountree, claim £7 4s 6d, for saddlery alleged to have been supplied to defendants. Mr McOonnel appeared for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for £4 12s, paid into Oourt, plaintiff to pay costs. Gee v Mason, claim £4 3s 4d, one month’s rent of a house. There had been an additional sum in the plaint for repairs, which had been paid into Oourt. Mr Thomas for plaintiff, Mr Button for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount paid into Court, with costs. Judgment went for plaintiffs by default in Shaw v Bailey, £6 2s; Christian v Summers, £ll 0s 4d j Fletcher v Howard, £ls 10s ; Lindimann v Witte, £9 12s ; Fletcher v Baird, £2 2s; Avon Bead Board v Harris, £6; same v Smith, £3 10s ; Macnatnara v Wilson, £27 10s ; Catty v Cashel, £4 6s 7d, and Green v Williamson, 11s 9d, Judgment was for plaintiff in Phillips v Parker, £1 ss, and defendant was ordered to pay costs and solicitor’s fee £2 13s in Brouard v Kennedy.

Saturday, June 4,

(Before J. Marshman and E. Westonra, Esqrs., J.P’s.] Drunkenness. —John Wilson, a frequent offender, for being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language, was sentenced to one months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Mary Brown was fined 10s or forty-eight hours’ imprisonmeut; John McManus, who bad been remanded for medical treatment as a lunatic from the effects of excessive drinking, now came up and was discharged with a caution.

ASHBURTON. Feiday, June 3. [Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq., E.M.] Civil Casks. —Andrew Dawson, farmer, of Waterton, claimed £2O in an action against Patrick Tully for injury accruing to a stack of straw by fire, caused through defendant's negligence on the 13th January. Mr Branson appeared for plaintiff. Mr Crisp for defendant, Plaintiff’s evidence went to prove that ho and five others, observing the fire, galloped down with buckets, that defendant had set fire to tussocks on the cemetery, that a strong east wind had carried the fire thence to plaintiff’s adjoining paddock, and sot fire to a stack comprising 30 tons of very good grass hay, containing 200 bushels of grass seed. At the time the seed would have fetched about 3s a bushel; similar seed could not now bo bought for less than 4s 6d. The stack was made a year previously, thatched down and wired. Seeing defendant trying to put out the fire, plaintiff said, “ You’ve made a fine mess of this.” Defendant replied, 11 Well, we couldn’t help it.” Plaintiff estimated his actual loss at £SO in regard to the grass seed alone, and £2 for injury to six chains of gorse and wire fencing. Ed. Tomlin, Jas. Moore, and Frank Saul gave evidence for plaintiff. The defence was that Tully had received instructions from the Cemetery Board to plough a circle of furrows in the cemetery, and set fire to the tutsocks in the centre, Michael Costello (Tully’s coworker) setting fire to the tussocks at Tully’s bidding. The magistrate decided that the amount claimed was considerably loss than equivalent to the loss proved to have been sustained, and awarded judgment to plaintiff for £2O damages, £1 10s witnesses’ costs, £1 5s Court costs, and £1 Is professional fee. John Goldburg, a proficient at “ Marble Peter," sought to recover from Sergeant Felton a marble-box and fifteen marbles (valued by Goldburg at £1 10j), a table cloth partitioned into five divisions (valued at £4), and a pack of cards (worth 2s). Mr Branson appeared for plaintiff. The sergeant claimed a nonsuit, as the law had not been complied with in respect to furnishing him with notice of action touching anything dons in pursuance of the Act in question. The point was reserved, pending hearing of evidence. Goldburg stated that he was a hawker, that he was informed against on Saturday last for playing a pretended game of chance on the Tinwald Racecourse, and that this charge and a subsequent one, which sought to render him liable under the Vagrant Act, wore dismissed. Goldburg, on his release, applied to the sergeant for his property, and the sergeant returned him £l7 in money, a watch and chain, two rings, &c., detaining the

articles now claimed. Plaintiff averred that be had used the box on racecourses and “ for several different things.” The cards were handy for him and his friends to have a quiet rubber when travelling by the train. Ho warn not aware if the cards were honest. " Anything you like” could be played with the box, and his Worship might (Holdburg said) make an excellent “Peter" by taking a common cigar box and cutting a little door in it, by which to let a marble drop out. Gold burg said ho used the cloth to explain to people the odds. Ho could not recollect whet ho used to say, but thought ho offered level on the seven rod and seven black marbles, and 12 to I against the white. For the defence, the sergeant stated that the plaintiff, who lived a life of vagrancy, and preyed on the depraved surroundings of abandoned women, would probably be arrested presently on a fresh charge, which would have been already instituted but for the illness of a material witness ; and maintained that the cheating box and cheating pack of cards were detained justifiably. If they woro returned to Qoldburg, ho would no doubt destroy them, and their destruction might now tend to a frustration of justice. The magistrate decided that, in the interest of the public, the sergeant was perfectly justified in detaining the goods.