MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2584, 19 July 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHEIBTOHUEOH, Wednesday, July 19. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Bsq., B.M.] Drunkenness. —For a first offence a man was fined 6s, or in default twenty-fcmr hours’ impugnment. Lunacy from Dbxnk. —George Wilson, who had been sent up from Ashburton as a lunatic, was brought up, after seven days’ medical treatment, and pronounced cured, having only been suffering from the effects oi 1 excessive drinking. He was ordered to pay 10a fid for hia maintenance while at Addington, and £2 2s for a certificate of sanity, and discharged. Civil Oases, —Innes v Gentleman, claim £79 6j Id, for goods supplied, pasturage, &s. Mr Loughrey appeared for plaintiff, Mr Joynt for defendant. £2 103 had been paid into Court over the balance relating to transactions at Temnka, the Court hid no juris.diction. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 10s, plaintiff to pay costs, MoEae v Henderson, claim £23 2s 63. Mr Loughrey for plaintiff, Mr Qresson for defendant. According to plaintiff, he had placed 300 shares in the Humphrey’s .Creek Qoldmining Company, a West Ooßstoonoern, in the hands of defendant, as a broker, to be sold at the market price on commission. They wore sold and plaintiff received payment for them at the rate of 4s per share, less 2d per share commission. Shortly afterwards he discovered

that on the day of the sale the shares were morth much more, and that the parcel had actually been sold, some for 5s and some for 5a He now sued for the difference between the money he received and the selling price—the amount claimed as above. Defendant deposed to having purchased the shares on his own account. He had not acted os broker for plaintiff. Evidence corroborative of this was produced, and judgment was for the defendant, with coats and solicitor’s fee. Brett v Smith, claim £2O 12i, balance of wages as fireman and engineer on board the b.b. Mnllogh, defendant’s vessel, Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff. Defendant produced a clear receipt for all dues to him given by plaint fl, and judgment was given for defendant, with costs, subject to the k consideration of an item stopped out of the wages, on which judgment was to be given later on. Max* well v Lamella Mr Thomas for plaintiff ; Mr Garrick for defendant. This was an action to recover £23, the value of two guns entrusted for sale on commission to defendant, who had two boys at the Exhibition, and had placed the guns amongst bis own stock there. The guns disappeared sometime between a Wednesday night and the following F/iday morning. They had not been heard of since, and wore supposed to be stolen, Mr Garriok brought evidence to prove that all reasonable care had been taken of the property, showing that the Exhibition, besides Doing a Customs’ bond, was under the special care of the police at nights, while the stalls were diligently guarded by defendant or bis deputy during the day. Judgment was for defendant, with costs of Court, solicitor’s fee (£3 3s), and expenses of one witness, ss. Judgments went by default for plaintiffs in Innes v Kiohmond, £2O, and in Partridge and Buddie v Cooper and Orchard, claim £36 ss, judgment was as against Orchard. Booth and Son v Toswill, and Katigan v Parker, wore adjourned till July 26th; Cholmondeley v Macintosh, till August 2nd. LYTTELTON. Wednesday, July 19. Before J. Ollivier, Eaq., 8.M., and J. W. Smith, Bsq, J.P.] Damaging a Street Lamp. —Throe young men, occupying respectable positions in society, were brought up charged with damaging a street lamp. The evidence of the lamplighter was to the effect that lamps had been extinguished in the outskirts of the town by some unauthorised persons, and ha had made a raid on these three. He could not identify more than one of them, however, and his evidence bb to the damage done to the lamp was by the Resident Magistrate deemed insufficient to convict. The Resident Magistrate characterised the case as a veiy weak one indeed, and dismissed it. An 111 Used Husband. —An aged crippled hobbled into Court on two sticks, and was accommodated with a chair to state his case. He said his name was Arthur and his wife Betsy, who bad, at his instance, been prohibited from being served with drink, had upon hearing what steps he had taken to stop her drunken propensities, beat him most unmercifully with a chair. He being a confirmed cripple, could not defend himself, and he prayed the Court to protect him, as be was in danger of bis life being taken. The 8.M., after hearing police evidence as to the general bad character of Mrs Arthur, said he could not by the Act commit her for a longer term than two months. She would be sent to gaol for that term, and would besides have to find sureties for her future behaviour for twelve months, herself in £IOO, and two sureties of £SO each.

Civil. CASE.— Smart v Johnson, claim £23 T 3«; claimed for damages alleged to have been done to a cottage the defendant had occupied. Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr H. N. Nalder for defendant. |]Left sitting.]]