MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2650, 4 October 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBISTOHUBOH. Wednesday, Ootobkb 4. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M., and B, Weetenro, Esq., J.P-3 DbunkenNbss.—Bor this offence the following fines wore inflicted : —Tbomee Wilson was fined £l, Cornelius O’Connor 10a ; two men for first offences each 6s, with the alternatives of the usual terms of imprisonment in default of payment. Vagbancy.—Joanna Gallagher, alias Connor, who had been found wandering about the streets at 1 a.m , was charged with not having ony lawful visible means of support. She was proved to have only just been released fromjgaol, and was v ell known to kio police as an inveterate drunkard and loafer for the Inst seven years. The Magistrate said •he had spent about half of that period in gaol. She was sentenced to bo imprisoned for seven days with hard labor. Civil Cases.—Matson and Co. v Cahill, £45 3s. Mr htringer appeared for plaintiffs. Ha stated that_ defendant had purchased

some horses at Tattersall’s, saying they were bought for and on account of Mr Oamero.i at Hokitika who would pay for them. Mr Cameron, however, on being communicated with repudiated the transaction. As the defendant resided on the West Coast there was attached to the plaint an affidavit of jurisdiction, which on examination proved to be informal, having been sworn to before a solicitor of the Supreme Court instead of a Justice of the Peace; the case was therefore struck out. Baxter y Garland, claim 18s; Mr Button for plaintiff. In this case plaintiff was the transferee of the book debts in the assigned estate of A. J, Tudball. On applying in the usual course for tbe payment of the present account, he found that the sum had been collected by Tudball on his own account. Mr Button said the fact was, that Tudball had got possession, surreptitiously, of the list of debts, and had gone round collecting them. His Worship said if there were to be any other cases of the kind, Tudball had better be brought there as a witness, so as to give him an opportunity to explain bis proceedings. Judgment was for plaintiff with costs. Collier v Steam, claim for £lO 7s, money lent. Mr MoConnel appeared for plaintiff } Mr Stringer for defendant. The suit was brought on an 10U, which defendant now repudiated. Defendant is a butcher, residing at Cheviot, and being in town, stayed at the hotel of which plaintiff is proprietor. Plaintiff’s story was that on his arrival defendant lodged with him £10; out of this money he received sums at various times, and on going away his account was liquidated with the balance. This left him without money, and he borrowed some from plaintiff to take him home, and gave the lOC as security for repayment. Plaintiff wrote several times applying for repayment, which, however, had not been made. Defendant deposed that when he orrived in town on July 12th last he had a cheque for £4O; he added £2O to an account he bed at the Union Bank, a deposit of over £4OO, and retained £2O. He spent £4 of that, and then went to plaintiff’s. He banded plaintiff a pocket book containing £l6, He stayed at the hotel some time, and on leaving was furnished by plaintiff with his bill, amounting to something over £B, and £7 9» in cash. Ho never borrowed £lO from plamtiff, having no occasion to do so. The signature to the IO U produced resembled his own, but he had no recollection of signing it. After leaving the hotel on a Monday morning be went straight to .the train, paid bis fare to Amberley, got on the coach there, and was driven to McLean’s Hotel. Ho paid a bill there of £7. Thence he got on the ooaoh and went to Cheviot, and had no money left on his arrival at that place. [A long cross-examination ensued, in which the defendant mixed up in a singularly confused manner a mass of details contradicting himself frequently in snob a manner as to show that ho had not the slightest idea of the value of his statements. Ha stated that he had never been out of Collier’s Hotel of

a night, and directly afterwards admitted hsvingwslept away two nights. He had not gone away on one occasion with a woman. Finally he said if Mr Collier swore te a thing he would not oontrsdiot him.] The lOU was ou an envelope, if bis signature was to it he must have written that while the envelope was blank, although he was not in tbe habit of signing blank pieces of paper. John Boyce, driver of the Amberley ooaob, deposed to having seen tbe defendant pay out of a pocket book to M'Lean £7; it contained nothing else except a bill receipted by Collier. Defendant had no money left to pay witness the coach fare to Cheviot. Plaintiff, re-oalled, owore that defendant had gone one evening away with a woman. This was all the evidence ready, and the ease was adjourned till Friday to get the attendance of a clerk at the Union Bank. Judgments went by default for plaintiffs in Buie v Healey, £4 14a 7d, and Hale and Co. v Loddon, £3O 13s Id. Kerr v Kirkwood and EU v Greongoe were adjourned till October 6th.