MAGISTERIAL,.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2403, 17 December 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL,.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, Dbcbmbbb 17[Before J. Ollivier, R.M., and J. B. Parker, J.P.] Dbunkknnbbs. Mary Cunningham, against whom there are recorded forty-six convictions for dimkennesa and vagrancy, extending over a period of six or seven year*, was brought up charged with being drunk. She was sentenced to ninety-six hours’ imprisonment, with the promise of a more serious penally when brought up again, spencer Luramis, and, for a first offence, a man, were fined 5s each for being drunk. Assault. —In the case of Isaac Burt, charged with assaulting Thomas Hawkes with a pair of garden shears, on December lltb, heard and remanded from December 13 th for iurther evidence, Mr Holmes again appeared for the defence. He produced a plan of the premises, and called two female witnesses, after which, addressing the Bench, be claimed that it had been proved that Hawke* bad been the agressor, and that what had occurred had been the result of gross provocation. The Bench remarked that the evidence was very unsatisfactory, so much so that, although a serious assault had been committed, they were unable to do otherwise than dismiss the case. Case dismissed. Embezzlement. John Symington was charged with appropriating to his own use 2s, the money of bis employer, O. J. Lee. Prosecutor, a butcher, stated that prisoner was employed by him to drive a cart and sell meat. On the 12th insfc., the first on which prisoner had gone out, ho failed to account for the proceeds of the sale of Slbs of beef, 2s. The case for the prosecution was fully proved, and prisoner, against whom there was a previous conviction for a similar offence, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. SOUIHBRIDGE. Thursday, Dbcbmbbb 15. [Before E. J. Lee, J. R. Campbell and R. B. Willis, Baqs., J.P.’s.] Civil Case. —T. W. Watson v P. Ball. The plaintiff sued for the value of a certain box of plato left at hie bouse by plaintiff’s wife without his knowledge. Mr Izard appeared for plaintiff; Mr Thomas for defendant. From the evidence brought forward it appeared that plaintiff’s wife determinir g to leave her husband, took her passage for England in the Rangitiki, and sent the box of plate to Ball’s till she went. Ball and his wife both swore that they thought she was going with her husband’s consent, and handed Mrs Watson the box, which was taken on board the vessel. Plaintiff swore that ho had no idea his wife was going. The goods were his property. On cross-examination plaintiff stated he had not paid for one single article. They were all wedding presents ; some to him but mostly to his wife. A number of witnesses having been examined and counsel on both sides having addressed the Bench, they retired fora short time, and on returning stated that there were eeveral legal points they would like to consider, and had determined to adjourn the cite till next Court day to be heard before the Resident Magistrate, counsel to be allowed to re-address the Court.