MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2343, 6 October 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, October 5. [Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq , R.M.] Civil Oases. —Pavitt v Mann and others ; claim £l6 16s. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiff, Mr Garrick for defendants. Plaintiff, a licensed surveyor, was employed by defendants, who are trustees of the St. Albans Recreation Ground. In compliance with their instructions, he surveyed and laid out their ground, and having advertised for tenders a contract for the necessary work was lot to one Napier. After some portion of the work had been done the contractor threw up his contract, and the trustees being dissatisfied with plaintiff, asked for and obtained his account, which, when rendered, they thought an excessive charge, and declined to pay, whereupon the present action was brought. The defendants now paid into Court £lO 10s in satisfaction of plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff deposed that be had made a very reasonable charge, and detailed the particulars of it. Mr Thomas said he was unable to produce the evidence of experts as to the volue of the work._ He had subposnaed Mr Dobson to give evidence of this kind, hut found when there was no time to call other professional gentlemen ihat Mr Dobson was at feveroargill.

The defendants pleaded that though there had been no price named beforehand for the work, plaintiff had promised to do it very low. They considered that the amount tendered was ample payment. Messrs Little and Mclntyre, surveyors, deposed that they valued the work done at about £8 or £9. His Worship said he considered the trustees had behaved liberally to plaintiff. He gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, plaintiff to pay costs of Court £2 11s ; expenses of two witnesses, £2 2s ; and solicitor’s fee, £2 2». Hawke’s trustees v Morrel, £23 6s ; Mr Loughnan appeared for defendant. This was a claim for refund of an advance made, cost of advertising property, &o. Defendant, who is a married woman, pleaded coverture, and plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. Same v Culliford, Mr Spackman for defendant. This was a claim —for how much or for what, was not named—but as Mr Hawkes, who appears for plaintiffs, was not, prepared to legally prove the appointment of trustees in the estate, and, therefore, their authority to sue, Mr Bpackman claimed a nonsuit. Mr Hawkes asked for an adjournment, which was granted till the 12th inst. The Magistrate refused to allow costs to the other side, remarking that the course taken by Mr Spackman was merely “ making litigation.”—Arris v Swanston, 18s. Defendant impounded a number of sheep belonging to plaintiff, they having strayed on to the land of defendant, who charged a driving fee of 18s. Plaintiff paid the amount, which he now sought to recover. Plaintiff proved, and defendant admitted that the letter’s fence was only of soda 3ft high, and not a legal fence or sheep proof. The Magistrate said under these circumstances defendant might impound beasts which he found trespassing, but the Act did not allow him to charge a driving fee. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs of Court and ex onses of plaintiff, £l.—Robertson v Hancock, claim £3O. Mr Stringer for plaintiff. Plaintiff made a dray for defendant, for which he charged as above. Defendant pleaded that plaintiff had agreed to make it for £24, which amount he paid into Court. After hearing evidence, including that of wheelwrights as to the value of the dray, hie Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £4 and the amount paid into Court, with coats of Court, solicitor’s fee £1 Is. and expenses of two witnesses 15s.—Clark v Gabbie, claim £l4 8a 7d for cost of preparation of a mortgage given by defendant as security for money advanced to him by plaintiff. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiff. Defendant swore that Mr Clark’s clerk had agreed with him, or promised him, that plaintiff should bear the expense of drawing the deed. That gentleman being called to support this statement, denied having done so, and judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs of Court, and solicitor’s fee £2 2s. —Belgrave v Chambers and Munro, £3 18s 105, Mr Holmes for plaintiff, Mr Button for defendants, was a claim for half the cost of putting up a dividing fence ; the difference arose as to the verbal agreement about the same. Judgment was for plaintiff for £3 14s lOd, with costa of court expenses of two witnesses, £l, and solicitor’s fee, £1 Is.—Cooper v James, £5 3s, for repairs to a cart, defendant pleaded having made an agreement for the work to be done for a much less sum. The evidence wont to prove this to be the case, and judgment was given for Bs. the balance owing, with costs.—Judgments went for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in Dutton v Green, £4 12s 6d ; Hawke’s trustee v D’Elmaine, £l6s; same v Cronin, £35 ; Hall v Dutton, £3 12s ; Ballantyne and Co. v MoLoughlin, £9 2s 6d; Lloyd and Co. v Falloon, £3 10s 8d ; same v Hood, £1 16a 6d ; same v Clark (costs), 8s ; Piaherty v McDonald, £3 ; Mason, Strothers and Co. v Harrop, £3 10a Id ; and Peiper v Edmunds, £7 6s 6d. Ooek and Boss v Taylor, Tombs and Co. v Renner, and Baines v Brown, were adjourned till October 12th. Thursday, October 6. [Before J. Nugent Wood, R.M., B. Westenra and J. E. Parker, J.P's.]

Obtaining Money on False Pbbtbncbs. —Seymour Harris Saunders was brought up on remand from October Ist charged with the above offence, 0. Eedfern, printer, deposed that prisoner had been in the employment of the late firm of Eedfern and 00,, of which witness was a member. He was a canvasser, and was paid salary £1 per week and 7i per cent, on all orders he handed in; the commission to be due when the orders were received by the firm. On August 13th ha gave in such an order for a rubber stamp, purporting to be on account of Mr John Taylor, dyer. The stamp was made, but on being tendered to Mr Taylor he refused to receive it, saying he had not ordered it. Accused had, before that, been paid 4s 6d commission on the sum to be charged for the stamp. In reply to the prisoner, the witness stated that, about September 15th, accused had voluntarily confessed to having made certain defalcations, giving a list of them, and the firm had made an arrangement witn him, retaining him in their employment, but stipulating that, while they still paid his salary, all the commission he earned was to bo kept back until the deficiencies were made good. This particular transaction was not included in the list; the firm had been led to believe it was lona fide. Accused might have said that “ to the best of his recollection and belief ” the list comprised all his defalcations. John Taylor deposed that prisoner did ask him for an order, and witness did not give him one, but on consideration witness thought accused might have construed what passed between them as the giving by him of an order. Prisoner had taken many orders from him before. One of the firm had brought the stamp to him, and seemed, when told that the order had not been given, to wish him not to take it. A. G. Gardiner, one of the late firm of Eedfern and 00., proved having offered the stamp to the last witness, who refused it. Constable O’Connor stated that when he arrested the prisoner on the charge the latter offered to pay the value of the stamp. The Bench, after hearing the above evidence, said there seemed to be a possibility of there being a misunderstanding by accused of Mr Taylor, and he would get the benefit of the doubt. Ha would be discharged. Another case against accused was then gone into. It related to an alleged bogus order for 2000 billheads from Mr William Noble, blacksmith, of Eangiora. The evidence was similar to the first cose. Mr Noble stated that accused had solicited an order from him, which was not given, though the refusal was not so peremptory but that prisoner might have thought the billheads would be received, and, in point of fact, witness would have taken them if they had been sent to him. Prisoner had done business for him for some years, and had often before supplied him with billheads in lots of 2000, and just now he was nearly out of them. Mr Gardiner had simply asked him if he had ordered some billheads. Witness did not know who he was, and repudiated the order, but if Mr Gardiner had shown the billheads, and explained by whom the order had been procured, ho would have taken them. Mr Gardiner corroborated previous witness, except in saying that he told Mr Noble that prisoner had handed in the order. Mr Noble was at work in the forge at the time, and in the noise witness might not have been heard, or was, perhaps, misunderstood. The Magistrates thought that, as before, a mistake might have been made by accused. They discharged him, but warned him to be more cautious in future with his business arrangements. Application pob Bail. —An application for bail on the part of Joseph Sparkes, committed for trial on Tuesday last on charge of destroying property at the Junction Hotel, was granted—himself in £SO and two sureties in £25 each. LYTTELTON. Thttesday, Octobbb 6, TBeforo H. Allwright and P. Bonalds, Esqs., J.P.’s 1 Insanity. —Thomas Bailey, on the testimony of lire. J. T. Eouso and H. Macdonald, was committed to Sunnyside Asylum, suffering from cerebral disease. Cheating a Dibtubbanch. —A seafaring man of good appearance, and one whose experience of the world might have been expected to have steered him clear of the indiscretion, was charged with behaving in an unbecoming manner towards the railway authorities in charge of the station. An apology had been offered and accepted, and he was fined 20s. Beeaoh or Fish Pboteotion Act.— John Williams was charged with a breach of this Act by having in his possession flounders for sale of less measurement than the Act specifies, namely, nine inches in length. Defendant said ho did not think it was his fault. He was simply a salesman, and the fish were sent down from Lake Ellesmere, where they were caught. This was the first case brought to the Court, and taking that into account, a fine of 5s was imposed, the Bench remarking they hoped it would be i a sufficient caution to defendant and to . others in the trade.