MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2209, 16 April 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIM ARU—THIS DAY. (Before 11. Bectham Esq., R.M.) A YOUNG OF FUN UK I!. A child was charged with the larceny of a M atch ; The case was dismissed on the friends of the accused promising to take her back home. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given by defendant for the plaintiff with costs. McKinnon v. Hunt —Claim, £8 5s 6d ; Palliscr v. Watte—Claim, £11; Hose v. Crawford —Claim, £ll 19 Id ; Meatman v. Gordon—Claim, £5 Is ; Knubley v. Trcgoning—Claim £54; Crerar and another v. Bellerain —Claim, £2 4s ; Cook r. Gordon —Claim, £3 ss. Saunders v. Green action to recover one buggy and marc; or their value £(J0; and £2O damages. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiff; Mr Hamcrsley for defendant. The buggy and mare had been assigned by Manning formerly of the Plcsant Point Hotel to plaintiff in April last, but when the latter in Oct. took possssion of Manning’s goods he missed these chatties and subsequently found them in the custody of Charles Green of the Ship Hotel. Mr Gi’cen was examined and deposed that he purchased the buggy and mare from Manning, M'ho owed him some money at the time. Mr Hamcrsley claimed a nonsuit on the ground that the bill of sale was faulty. His Worship briefly summed up the the evidence. Judgment for the plaintiff ; the buggy to be given up, or its value, £35, M’ith costs, £7 12s. No damages allowed. WAIMATE—YESTERDAY. [Before R. Bectham Esq., R.M., and the Mayor.] assault. Charles Boyce was charged with having on Wednesday last assaulted and beaten Peter Henderson. Mr Hawkins appeared for the informant. After the evidence had been given on both sides, the Bench dismissed the case, informant to pay costs. William McDonald and Thomas McKirkhill were charged with conducting themselves in a riotous manner in a licensed house. McKirkhill pleaded guilt} r and was fined 5s and costs. W. McDonald, who Mas defended by Mr Jameson, M'as acquitted. PEIUUIIY. T. H. G. Smith M’as charged upon the information of George William Theobald with, that he did at Dunedin on March 19, M’ickcdly and corruptly commit perjury. Mr Clement for informant and Mr Jameson for accused. Arthur Alexander Adams gave evidence to the accused being duly sM’orn by an officer of the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Johnston and a jur} r , and that he stated upon oath that he knew Barrett’s mill and Theobald’s property, and that he had been there on the 14th Nov. 1878 at dinner time; was at Theobald’s at midday; saw a fire near Barretts’ mill, saM’dust and scrub both burning; one patch, half a chain from the mill, and bctu’ccn the mill and Theobald’s, as big as a horse; that'on the loth he M’as on his mvn section at the edge of the bush, and M’cnt up the north bush road about 11 o’clock, arriving at Theobald’s about 12 o’clock ; that the fire Mas all round, and there M’as so much smoke that he could not sec his house, but he believed it M’as burning, and that the fire on the ranges had not entered the bush, but M’as only a grass lire.

Wm. Barrett, John Young - , Mrs Young - , W. Eade, imcl (Jeorge Cape-1 gave evidence that they had taken (heir dinner in the open air and on the limber on the 14th, and that (here was no lire there then, and that the (ire from the ranges had entered the bush, and was down on the Hat. (Jeorge and Joseph Bird gave evidence of having worked with Smith from 11 o’clock in the morning until J.JO in the afternoon of the loth on his own section, and that he was with them all the time except about twenty minutes; that they were at dinner and he was there when they left ; that he was there when they returned, and that he told them next day that he did not leave until four o’clock. Hy. Chapman said he saw Smith at his own place between two and three o’clock. This concluded the case for the informant. Mr Jameson applied fora dismissal on the ground that it was nut proven that

the accused could not see what he had sworn to from where he was, and that the record had not been produced. _ Their Worships said that they did not consider it necessary to produce the record at the preliminary investigation, but they declined to commit the accused as they did not consider that it was a matter of sufficient public interest to warrant a committal. The informant could, at his own risk, take the case to the Supreme Court, and they would allow him till next Thursday to consider the matter. It was also agreed that a similar information against William Hayton should be adjourned till that date.