MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6495, 21 December 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OttBISTOHDROU. Tms»at, D«e, 20. (Before J. Ollivier, K S( . R.M., And J. I’. Jamesnn, Ksq,) iHtmcßKt M#ttAviooii.—Henry Qitr#, a ' boy About 13 years of age, »m charged with behaving in an indecent manner At Adding* too omthe pvevtoue day. The accused ad* milled the offence. The Bench administered A severe caution to the lad and discharged him. LABORKt.—Albert KJward Pep* roll wo# charged with the larceny as n eervant of a bag of eager aod a box of soap, the property of the General Government, on the previous day. Mr Molmee appeared on behalf of the accused, and i»ld he woe inslruolsd by the father of scouted, who wa» a young man cm* ployed at the railway ttat ion, to admit that the offence had been committed in a moment of temptation, but the accused bad not made any use of the articles ho had taken, and had intended to return them. The Bench uid that unfortunately offences of this nature wore becoming too numerous of late, and they could not pass over the offence. The accused was sentenced to seven days' hard labour.—Ellen Norton was charged on remand from Doc. 13 with stealing a book, value £2 10s, the property of Frederick I’antin. The accused hod been remanded for seven days to enable her to recover from the effects of drink, from which she was suffering at the time. Sergeant Pratt said the book had not been found. The uooutod admitted the offence, and pleaded for leniency. Her husband, a cripple, who was in Court, also appealed to the Bench to take a lenient view of the case. The Bench said they observed there hod been several previous convict ions of cates of a similar character recorded against the accused, all arising from the same cause —drink. They advised her husband to endeavour to keep her from liquor for the future. Sentenced to seven days' hard labour. Vaobawoy.—Tho woman Lucy Davies (and her baby) who was remanded from the previous day to enable enquiries to be mode as to what could bo done for her, was brought before the Court. Sergeant Pratt said he had seen Mr March, who had expressed his

willingness to. take the woman and her child into the Female Homo. The Bench told accused that she would bo discharged to bo admitted to tho Female Home, where she might remain if she conducted herself properly; but if not, she must expect to bo sent to gaol as a vagrant. The woman was then removed. CIVIL CASES. Misobllankoub.—Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in tho cates of Fuhnnann v. Stevens, claim £lO 6s j Oloworth v. Fisher, claim £4 10s j Young v. Farkos, claim £l. —Tho cases of Boss v. Boss and Martin*?. Elliott were adjourned to Jan. 4.— ln Wilson v. White, claim £8 15s, plaintiff was nonsuited with costs.—ln Billens v. Burt, claim £4 12s XOd, judgment went for plaintiff.— Cretswoll v. Osborne, claim £ls for damages. Mr Balter for plaintiff j Mr Spaokman for defendant. Plaintiff had purchased a buggy from defendant for £25, on condition of its being repaired and put in good order, paying for it by orders on defendant, which plaintiff had received from a man named Buddiok. Plaintiff now claimed damages, alleging that tho buggy was only worth about £lO, it not having been properly repaired. It appeared, however, that it had been driven about 80 miles on various occasions, and also that defendant had never received any money on the orders given him by plaintiff. Judgment for defendant, with costs.—A man named Edwards entered an interpleader in tho case of Duncan v. Ectbcrg, alleging that some of the goods seized were the property of bis brother in Auckland, had boon sold by him to bis brother. Ho could produce no satisfactory authority to appear for his brother, and too Bench dismissed the interpleader, with costs.

Chobch t. James.— Claim £lO 12s 41, for tailoring and other pods supplied. Mr Izard for defendant. The case had been adjourned from a previous occasion, to verify the entries in plaintiffs books and prove the delivery of the goods. Plaintiff and a young person who had been bis assistant at the time of sale, proved the entries and delivery, and that defendant, who was a Miss James, had promised to pay for the goods on her father’s behalf, who had since become bankrupt. Mr Izard contended that as defendant was a minor at the time the goods were ordered she could not be responsible for payment, but as defendant bad written to plaintiff promising to pay after she waa of age tho Bench gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. O’SULLIVAW AND Co. V. PABBOHA— Claim £6los, commission on sale of property. Mr Loughnan for plaintiff; Mr Joyce for defendant. Plaintiff stated that in March lost, defendant had instructed him to sell a house and section of land near the Gasworks for £lO5, the £5 to be plaintiff's commission if he found a purchaser. Ho did so, but defendant would not complete the bargain, saying he then wonted £l3O. A few oays later, plaintiff found a purchaser at that amount, and still defendant held back, saying that “parties concerned” would not allow him to sell, and ho now claimed a quantum mentil commission of 6 per cent on tho £l3O. Tho plaintiffs’ statement was corroborated by Messrs Presiwood and M’Phelan, who had offered to purchase tho froparty at £lO5 and £l3O respectively At the conclusion of plaintiff*'case, Mr Joyce submitted that plaintiffs should bo nonsuited on the ground that plaintiffs were described on the plant as “O’Sullivan and Co,’’ O’Connor, the other partner cot being joined to O’Sullivan. Mr Loughnan submitted that the Bench had power to amend the plaint, but Mr Joyce contended that this could not bo done, seeing that plaintiffs' case was dosed. Tho Bench declined to nonsuit tho plaintiff, and decided to deal with tho ease on its merits. Tho defendant, H. W. Parsons, said he had told plaintiff ho wished to sell his property for £l3O cash; subsequently, plaintiff bad brought a person to treat with defendant to purchase by instalments, to which he would not agree. Later on, defendant found he could not get tho necessary deeds, and ho told plaintiff to lot (he matter drop. The property hud not since been sold. Ike Bench wore satisfied that the plaintiff's statement of tho case was a true one and gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

LYTTELTON, Tuesday, Deo. 20. (Before J. Beswiak, Esq, 8.M.) Dibousdibnok or Obdbus.-H. Forman, a seaman on board the schooner Advance, was charged with this offence. The Captain laid tho man refused to heave In ballast, saying he wasted bis discharge. The mas elected to go on board. Dmbbtion.—John Ennis and 11. Holm, seamen on board the barque W. 0. Wentworth, were charged with deserting from the vessel. They were ordered on hoard,

Rarcanro to Akswmb a Summons,— Samuel Northey was charged with neglecting to appear to answer a summons charging him with not paying for the support of his child at Burnham. The man promised to pay £1 on Saturday next, so the Bench adjourned I he ea»« until Jon. 3. Uei.vu Pkovaxb Lanouaoh —Jane Haslock waa charged with using profane language within hearing of person# passing in the street. The offence was proved by Constable M'i.eUan, and the Bench sentenced accused to three months’ hard labour, Cattli '1 übsuabs.— George Baker was fined S« and costs, for having a cow at large. —W. Bailey 10s and caste, for two mares at large,—B- Vogan ss, for one mare at large, assault. —J, Naylor was charged with assaulting James Davis on Friday last. Mr ||, N. Holder appeared for tho complainant. Complainant said ho was sitting on hi* verandah on Friday afternoon, when defendant went over into his premiies and abused him, knocked him down, kicked him, and jumped o t him- Complainant said he gave defendant no provocation whatever. Defendant said that complainant’s wife had been making remark# about hi# wife. Alter defendant bad assaulted complainant, ho went away and relumed with a tomahawk. Defendant stated that complainant's wife bad badly treated bis little boy on Friday morning, and

it vu on that account that he want over into complainant's premises to rsmonslrate. He admitted getting excited And iSMulting com* nlAiHint, bat (Aid he was provoked by him. The Bench nld it wae a casein which » penally mint ht inflicted. Vo doubt defendant bad waited provocation, bat he would h»r« to pay a fine of 20* and costs. Civil Cam,—Duff r. Grubb, claim £1 it. Judgment by default with costs.

BAvniOBA. TtfAsUAV, Duo. zo. (Before G. WUiuf.iml, >«|, 8.M., H. Blackett, J U. Boys, A. 11. Cunningham, and 11. L Jliggin*, Esq# ) Civil Oxssti —J, Miller v. T. G. Moly* ncaus, eUim £3 lff« 6L Mr Bpackman for defendant. After the plaintiffs evidence had been heard, Mr Spackman contended that the plaintiff we* out entitled to *ue in his own name, os ho was collecting for a bankrupt estate. Mr Whltefoord said, under the circumstances, the bill of particular* being in the proper form, ho would amend the plaint. Mr Bpackman objected, but the Magistrate overruled the objection. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £1 7$ 6d, disallowing the painting, which they said was not well done—Colonial Bank, by Mr J. Fulton, v. H. M'Nally, claim £lO, for an overdrawn account i judgment for the plaintiff by default.-J. W. Mnrfltt v.H. Topp, claim £ll lie 3d. Mr Oresson for plaintiff, Mr Spackman for defendant. This was a claim for work done under a temporary partnership which had boon speedily dfssolred. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £7 6s 3d. Vo cost* were allowed to either side, as the Bench looked upon it more as a ease of arbitration, and (Blowing the Court costs to be divided between the parlies.—W. Free v, F. Dighwood, claim £6 10s, judgment summons j ordered to pay the amount of 10s per week, or ia default one month’s imprisonment.

TIMAEtT. Ivmdat, Dio. 20. (Before Doetham, Esq., R.M., and T. W. Hall, Ksq.) OimOABBV—B, Gibson v. 0. Begg and Co., claim £8 2s for overcharge on goods sold. Mr Hameraley for plaintiff, Mr Jameson for defendants. Plaintiff stated that ha bought some musical instruments from Begg tod Co., through their agents, F. W. Hutton and Co., amongst them being a cornet. The price of this was £4los, but it was charged in (he account as £l2 12s. He gave a bill for (be goods instead of taking them on deferred payments, and an allowance of £3 6t woe made on that consideration, Hatton promised to see that the overcharge waa settled, but did not do so. The bill was met, half in cash, and half by another bill. W. Knight corroborated the evidence of hut witness, os to tho Erioo of the comet, aod the statement made y Hutton that tho overcharge would be pat right when he went to Dunedin* W. Hoggins deposed as to tho value of the instrument, which was produced. It was worth from £4 IDs to £6. Mr Jameson asked for a nonsuit on tho grounds that Mr Begg was dead, though tho n»me was still kept up. The defendant's agent, F, W. Hutton, related the nature of the transaction, saying that (be allowance of £3 8s was off the pnee of the cornet, and not on the terms stated by tho Slaintlff. Counsel having addressed the Curt, tho Bench gave judgment for £4 14s; taking tho allowance of £3 8s as being off the price of the cornet. A farther claim of £l, another overcharge, was disallowed. Court costs were granted to plaintiff.—Beid and Gray v. Wildermoth, claim £7 St 6d, adjourned to Jan. 31, 1882. M'Lean and Stewart v. Hamilton, claim £23 10s. Mr Hamersloy for plaintiff, Mr Heid for defendant. Judgment confessed, the money to be paid in a week. A cross notion is pending.— Stonyer v. Leach,, claim £l2 12* Gd. Mr Hamersloy for plaintiff, Mr Jameson for defendant. Adjourned at defendant's request to Jan. 8, with costs against defendant. This concluded the business.