MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2657, 12 October 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHBISTOHUBOK. Thursday, October 12. [Before J- Ollivier, B?q., 8.M., and E. Westerns, Eiq., J.P.]

DbubkbNHEss Daniel Burke, for being drunk and indecently exposing himself, wai fined 6s and £2 for the offence* respectively, or in default to bo imprisoned for four days. Edward Floyd was fined £l, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment, and H, Newlasd 6«, or in default twenty-four hours imprisonment, Lahobny by a Domestic Sbbtakt.— Mary Oastle, formerly in the employment of A. H. Oskey, High street, pleaded guilty to stealing from her employer articles of wearing apparel, valued in all at £3 3a, Xhe girl,

who had given her a/ve as sixteen year*, bu - who looked a mere child, was not accompanied by her pare nts, though her father and mother reside at Addington, and had been made fully aware of the charge. After nearing Mr Oakoy the Bench remanded prisoner till Saturday next, ordering that the attendance of her parent* bo secured on that nay. Civil Oases.— Noding v Pathenck, claim £5, for money lent. Mr Stringerfcr plaintiff, Mr Joynt for the defendant. This case had been adjourned. Defendant bad put m a set-off of £247, which, however, had been reduced to £l9 10s, to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. It appeared that ■ plaintiff had been bearding for eight years or more with -defendant, and ho produced a book in which a large number of entries were shown as for money lent, of which £5, the particular amount sued for, was one. This money had been given to the Misses Petheriok, and for them he had purchased articles for tlm toilette, weiring apparel, &c., in great variety, the cost amounting to £204. This expenditure, duly booted, was put by plaintiff against board and lodging received, towards which he had also for part of the time paid 10s per week. The defence was that plaintiff had at first agreed to pay £1 per week for his board and lodging. He left off paying after awhile till 1881; since that time ho had paid 10* only per week, leaving a largo debt duo by him. The £5 had not been borrowed, it was simply obtained from plaintiff as part payment of the debt. The production of the account for ai tides supplied to the young ladies was quite a surprise. Miss Pathenck swore that all the articles booked by plaintiff had, so far as she was mentioned, been presents, and nothing np till this time had been said to the contrary. The Bench were of opinion that the £5 was not money lent, and gave judgment for defendant with costs. Avon Road Board v Caldwell, £2 18s 9d for rates; judgment"for plaintiffs with costs. Heathcoto Road Board v George, £6 4i 2d, for rates; judgment for plaintiffs with costs. Phillips v Landergan, claim £3 12s 6d, for carting straw, cutting wood, and feeding pigs. Defendant said his wife had made an agreement which he knew nothing of. Mrs Landergan made a statement which was unsupported, and contradicted by a witness for plaintiff. Judgment was for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. Judgment went by default for plaintiffs in Heathcote Hoad Board v Knight, £l4 la 3d ; same v Jatdine, £3 3s 4d; Stranaghan v Jones (costs), 7s ; Mason, Struthers and Co. v Genet, £1 12s ; MoOlatohie and Mclntosh v Sheriff, £6 3s ; Davis v Osborne, £8 ; Aiokin v Gilbert, £l4 9s 6i ; Doyle v Q taife, £1 10a ; and Taylor v Bartlett, £3 6s 3d. Fisher v Mole was adjourned till October 14th ; Percy v McNair till October 18th.