MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2208, 15 April 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TEMUKA-TIHS DAY. (Before P. Guinness Esq., R.M. SUSPECTED LUNACY. A man arrested on suspicion of suffering from lunacy from drink was discharged, having recovered. AFFILIATION. Nelson Eden was charged, on the information of Mary Washington with failing to contribute to the support of his illegitimate child. The defendant did not appear, and the Sergeant of Police suggested that possibly the man was under a misapprehension as to the date of the sitting of the Court, yesterday’s Court having been adjourned until to-day. It appeared that he is employed on a threshing machine in the Ashburton district.

His Worship ordered ;i fresh summons to be issued for this day fortnight. TJIIS OKAUI TRESPASS CASE. Webster and Hamer charged, on remand, with trespass at Orari, were not in attendance ; possibly for the same reason as in the last case, it was suggested. Adjourned until next week. CIVIL (’ASKS. Liston v. Happy—Claim £1 1 9s 2d. Judgment, by default for amount claimed and costs. Barr v. McClintock —Claim£s 15s. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Austin v Brosnahan —Claim £5. Mr Johnston for plaintiff ; Mr Hamersley for defendant. The ease was adjourned from last Court day in order that the plaint might be altered from “ illegal detention” to “ monies had and received,” and to enable a set off to be put in. Mr Johnston objected that the set off had not been served within the time specified by the Act—24 hours, and thcrefoio could not be entertained.

Mr Hamersley replied that the set off had been sanctioned by the Court in this instance, and could therefore be filed at anytime. Hugh Brosnahan, hotelkeeper, Orari, was then, called. Knew the plaintiff. When the £5 in dispute was detained Austin owed witness the sum of £G 18s. He knew that he owed this money, and had promised witness before the affair about the £5 that he would “ pay him some day.” Witness rendered plaintiff an account in January last for £4. The whole of the account, with the exception of some bottles of spirits, two dinners, and cash lent, was for drinks supplied to plaintiff. A. Austin, the plaintiff, being called, denied having borrowed any money from the defendant, and also having had dinner at his house. The whole of the money items in the account against witness was put in for him by defendant when “ shaking for drinks” was going on. Never received actual cash from defendant. Cross-examined by Mr Hamersley— Had been in the habit of getting what lie liked at Brosnahan’s hotel. Could not say whether the spirits, &c., referred to in the account were supplied or not. Mr Johnston submitted that liquor debts were not recoverable, and referred to the Tippling Act. Mr Hamersley replied that under certain conditions the Tippling Act could not be applied. The learned counsel then cited several cases in support of his assertion, and His Worship, who remarked that he had not himself met with these cases, reserved his judgment, in order that he might look up Mr Hamersley’s authorities. The ease will be decided at the next sitting of the Court. Before rising, His Worship remarked that as the winter months were now' approaching it might be as well, if convenient to the professional gentlemen from Timaru, to alter the hour of the

sitting of the Court, and go back to the former hour, 12.50 pan. The gentlemen present approving of the proposal, it was decided by His Worship that the Court sit in future at the latter hour. The Court then adjourned.