MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2430, 19 January 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Jandaby 18. [Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M., and R. Westenra, J.P.] OrviL Cases.—Fuhrmarm v Lewis was a claim for £7 6s 2d for goods supplied, adjourned from January Hth for proof of delivery, which was now supplied, and judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. — Lamb ahead v Harris, junr,, claim £3O for wages as farm labourer from October 21st, 1880, to July 31st, 1881. Mr Stringer for plaintiff; Mr Peroival for defendant. Defendant did not deny that plaintiff had earned the money, but pleaded that he had been hired by Harris, senr. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs of Court and solicitor’s fee, £3 3s.—Day v Sandford, claim £l2, the value of a foal said to have died from the effects of worrying by dogs belonging to defendant. Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff, Mr Izard for defendant. On September 10th last plaintiff found the foal seriously injured by a dog, and it died from the effects of those injuries three days afterwards. Plaintiff had frequently seen defendant set bis dog on to the foal, but not on this particular occasion. Believing, however, that he had cause, he made a claim on defendant after the foal’s death for its value, and defendant said ho was “ willing to settle,” but nothing coming of it the present action was brought. Defendant denied having ever set his dog on to the foal, or of having entertained any idea of paying plaintiff the value of it. .Judgment was for plaintiff for £5 with costs, expenses of one witness, and the usual solicitor’s fee. —Hern v Lambert, £3O for goods (stoves, &c.) delivered. Mr Joyce for plaintiff, Mr Gresson for defendant. The re* ceipt of the goods was admitted, but defendant, who is an architect, claimed to have paid the account, part by cheque and part by contra account for professional services, an arrangement, he alleged, agreed to by plaintiff. Plaintiff denied having employed defendant at all, or having agreed to set defendant’s charge against his own. His Worship thought defendant could not be allowed to put his claim against plaintiff’s, but that the former should not be debarred from recovery of same. He would give judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs, but would order execution to be stayed for eight days to give time for the cross-action to be brought.—Osborne v Oresswell, £3O, the value of a buggy and harness, Mr Spaokman for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. The purchase of the article* was not denied, but defendant swore that payment had been made for them by orders drawn by a third party on a Road Board then approved by plaintiff, but which bad been dishonored on presentation. Plaintiff denied having received the orders in payment, and now sought to fall back on defendant for the purchase money. Defendant, however, declined to pay as he said a second time, and the present action was the result. After lengthy evidence being taken, counsel for plaintiff accepted a nonsuit, and to pay costs and the usual solicitor’s fee. — Judgments went for plaintiffs by default with costs, in Reece v Pearce, £7 15s 7d ; Ames v O’Brien, £22 ; and Sinclair v Smith, £2B [4a 9d.—Wilson v Barker was adjourned till February Ist; Green v Wattie, and Green v Chadwick, till January 25th. Thuesday, Januaey 19.

[Before B. Westenra and J. P. Jameson, Esqs., J.P.’s.] Dbtjnkbnnbsb.—Mary Thompson alias MoAlpine, who had only very lately been discharged from gaol, where she had been serving a term for a similar offence, was fined 5s for being drunk. George Oorry, for being drunk and guilty of indecency, was fined 20e, or in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Wm. Hutton, similarly charged, and who seemed to be suffering from delirium tremens, was remanded till January 26th for medical treatment at Addington Gaol. Ihdkoeht Assault.—John Brown, a middle-aged man, was charged with the above offence, committed on a little girl aged six and a half years on Friday morning last. He had been brought up and remanded on Monday last. He was now defended by Mr Holmes, After hearing evidence with closed doors, the Bench dismissed the case, stating that in their opinion it was a case of mistaken identity.