MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2372, 9 November 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

LYTTELTON. Monday, November 7. fßefore Joseph Boa wick, Esq., R.M.] Stealing Poultry.—A boy named Yincent, for being concerned in a duck and goose robbery at Opawa, was remanded for a week, his bail being enlarged. Drunkenness.—W.Hopwood, for drunkenness, was fined 20s ; W.Burns admitted being drunk on Sunday, and was fined 20s. Borough By-Law Breach. Richard Rouse, charged with driving a horse during prohibited hours, was fined 20s. An Imprudent Apprentice.—Henry F, Brain, an apprentice belonging to the ship Rangitiki, was sent on board, Mr Oanise, the chief officer, agreeing to take him back. Civil Oases. -—A case, Hawkins and 00. v J. K, Qannoway, was called, but the defendant having filed did not appear. Plaintiff said it was a shameful case, defended t being in receipt of £l2 per month, and he thought did not owe more than a nominal sum altogether. J. Hayles v P. Johnson, claim £6 16a 6d. Mr Joyce for plaintiff, Mr Naldei for defendant. This was a case wherein the plaintiff, a cook on board the Clematis, of which defendant was master, sought to recover the above amount for two months’ wages. His evidence was to the effect that plaintiff went to Christchurch one evening and lost the train, thus keeping him in town until the following morning, when he returned to Port, and found the vessel had gone to sea. The wages ho claimed were due to him when the occurrence took place. No claim was made for his clothes, which he alleged were taken away in the vessel. The mate of the vessel for defendant said he brought the plaintiff ashore in his boat, and he asked him if ho could run up to Woolston and back, and he (the mate) told him he would lose his passage if he went. The vessel left that night about ten o’clock. Plaintiff said he would run up by train, and the result was he missed his passage. The defendant said the man was engaged as cook on the 9th of August, and on that day he put into this port to await a fair wind; the man had no permission to leave the vessel. The Clematis was bound from Kaiapoi to Pelorus Sound, and Mr Nalder contended that as the vessel was on her voyage and had put in windbound, the seaman could not recover. Defendant had employed a man in plaintiff’s place after finding plaintiff was not on board when he was ready to proceed on his voyage. Mr Joyce claimed that the contract for wages was at per month, and the man was entitled to recover the amount due to him as each month accrued. The Magistrate, apart from the law on the subject, said he did not think it was a case in which the wages should be forfeited, and judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff.

KAIAPOI. Monday, November 7. [Before O. Whitefoord, Esq , R.M.] Cattle Oases.—GK P. Milsom, W.|Blber, and J. Bowron, were respectively fined 5b for allowing cattle to stray. J. Ranting, for rescuing a cow while being impounded, was ordered to pay costs, 15s. Us ins Obscene Language,—G. Seawood, on information of Sergeant Gilbert, was charged with using obscene language in the Domain on Sunday week. The offence was admitted. The Magistrate commented severely on the bad language which was becoming too common in public places, and indicted a fine of 20s, with the alternative of of four days’ imprisonment. Vagrancy.—William Mann, on remand, was brought up, and as he stated his intention of returning shortly to England, ho was further remanded eight days, on his own recognizance, to enable him to secure his passage by the City of Tan j ore. Civil Oases.—F. Horrell v E. Seawood, £8 5s 5s ; judgment summons ; order made for payment at rate of 7s 6d per week, or two months’ imprisonment. Dr. Ovenden v F. Fluty, £l4 4s, and same v A. Fraser, £2 5s ; judgment for plaintiff. Same v Friday, £2 16s, adjourned. H. Wyatt v J. Garry, £l4 14s ; judgment for plaintiff, and order made to give up a tenement before November 11th.

RANGIORA. Tuesday, November 8. [Before Caleb Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., A, H, Cunningham, J. Johnston, and H Blackett, Eeqs., J.P’f.] Cattle Trespass—Robert McDonald was fined 6s for this offence, and Thomas Dench ss. Civil Oases.—Trustees in Harris’ Estate v Bernays, claim £2 7s sd. Judgment for amount claimed and coats. Alprcss v Fergusson ; case adjourned for a week. Murray v A. Campbell ; defendant pleaded insolvency. McDowell v Pastor, claim £IOO for damage to land by flooding. Mr Perceval for plaintiff, Mr Garrick for defendant. Mr Wm. Ross gave evidence, and valued the damage at £SO. Mr McDowell proved that the course had been diverted in 1879 from a natural watercourse. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs, Harris’ Estate v Luxton Bros., claim £42 7s sd. Case adjourned for a week, for the production of further evidence. A. Parsons v George Sexton, destruction of a dog valued at £5. Captain Parsons stated that on the morning of October 19th he found his dog wounded. He sent a boy after a man to see who had run over it, fancying it had been run over. Found it was the defendant who had cut its throat; not effectually, as it had crawled away and lived about an hour and a half afterwards. The man stated that it had been worrying his sheen. George Parsons, examined, said that his father told him to ride after the man and see who he was. Overtook defendant and asked if he knew whoso dog he had killed. Defendant said “No.” Witness said it was Captain Parsons’ dog. Robert Parsons stated that he bad called upon defendant, and had a talk with him about the dog. It was a bull-terrier puppy, about six months old. Defendant stated that he believed ho had a right to kill the dog, as it had worried his sheep, below the ford on the main road. Ho refused to pay £lO for tho dog. David Todd, examined, stated that he saw the skin of tho dog tho day after it died. It was the skin produced Other evidence having been given, the Bench said that, on the evidence, the Court could not adjudge damages to the plaintiff, but considered that the defendant had been guilty of a most mean, cowardly action in thus destroying, and in such a manner, a little puppy, which he must have known belonged to some one in the immediate neighbourhood. The defendant would not have to pay damages, but would not be allowed costs.