MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2254, 23 June 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHRISTOHUBCH. Wednhsday, June 22. [Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq., B M.] Oivin Cases, —Croton v Smith. This was a case in which there had been two adjournments. It was a claim by Mrs Croton for £8 3s for wages said to be due to her son, who had been in defendant’s employment. Defendant now produced evidence showing that a settlement had been made with the husband of plaintiff, by his attorney, which covered the claim. Judgment for defendant with costs. Mr McOonnel appeared for defendant.—Gilligan and others v Hammill, £22 14s, and Hammill v Gilligan and others were cross actions, the first for goods supplied, the other £25 for non-fulfilment of contract. Mr Thomas appeared for Gilligan ; Mr Loughnan for Hammill. Gilligan and Co. made a con tract to supply Hammill with sand and gravel, and, as they say, were compelled to throw it up in consequence of the stuff not being taken away as fast as it was got out. Hammill denied that there had been any neglect on his part, and alleged that he had been put to a large expense on account of the failure to complete their contract by the other party. Judgment was given for each plaintiff in their several suits in the amount of £22 14s, without costs.— Oookaon v Seaton, claim £7O, damages incurred by breach of warrantry ; Mr Harper for plaintiff, Mr Thomas for defendant. Plaintiff, a coach proprietor at Ashburton, had bought two horses from defendant in Christchurch, on his statement that they sound and fit at once to go into work at once as coachers. There had boon no trial, nor had plaintiff even examined the horses. He paid £SO for them, solely on the representation of defendant that they wore of a particular description, The horses were sent up to Ashburton where they arrived very lame, after having been spoiled a day or two at Bakaia. After keeping them up for ten days, plaintiff tried them in a coach and found them unfit for work. One had been staked and had splints ; the other had enlarged hocks. Plaintiff had never since used them, and had been to considerable expense in keeping them, and had lost by not having their services. The defence was that the horses were bought all faults ; there had not been a close examination of them at the sale by either plaintiff or defendant; who was unaware of the horses being unsound, if they were unsound at that time. The case occupied a very long time in hearing, after which judgment was given for plaintiff for £55, with costs and solicitor’s foe;—Judgment went by default for plaintiff s in : —Garrick and Oowlishaw v Bees, £32 17s 9d ; McPherson v Browne, £lO 6s 9d ; Martin v Thompson, £1; Matson and Co. v Rountree, £3 19s; Whitta v Rogers, £7 12s 6d ; Piper v Marsden, £1 18s 6i ; and Hay v flay, £l4 6j 9d. Hawken v Robinson, Keast v Chapman, ond Willis v McMillan, were adjourned till June 29th ; Hubbard v Barnes till June 24th. Thursday, Junh 23. (Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq , 8.M., and E. Westerns, Esq., J.P.) Drunkenness. —For a first offence a man was fined ss. Pat Ryan, whom the police described as an habitual drunkard, pleaded very hard for another chance, and being fined Is, was dismissed with a caution. Larceny. —Jno. Hawker was charged wilh stealing a pair of clogs, the property of B, J. Hale. This was a case of shoplifting, the articles having been stolen from a nail on the outside of Mr Halo’s boot ond shoe shop, Colombo street. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor.