MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2212, 20 April 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—THIS DAY. (Before 11. Bcctham Esq., E.M.) nimxKKxxnss. An inebriate wss lined os for this offence. TUK ALLKGKU ASSAULT ON A MAIiUIKD WOMAN. Jonathan Allpress was charged, on remand, with assaulting Alice Oraaf. This ease was adjourned from yesterday in order to enable the prosecutrix to call a witness, a Mrs Mackenzie, to coiiJinn the evidence,

The prosecutrix now came forward and stated that Airs Mackenzie was 100 ill to attend the Court.

His Worship said that he supposed she would be too ill to attend for some time to come. He thou proceeded to sum up the evidence, remarking that these eases were much more easily brought than disproved. In this case there was only the oath of the prosecutrix as against that of the defendant. In such a ease the surrounding circium stances could only be taken into consideration as throwing a light on what had occurred, and these circumstances were against the prosecutrix. When a woman was insulted she should lose no time in making her grievance known. In this case it has been shown that the prosecutrix had been insulted twice previously, once in Aug. last, and again only a week ago. On the former occasion she complained of having been insulted b} r the defendant Allpress, and yet she last week asked him into her kitchen, knowing that she had, according to her own statement) been previously insulted by him. Taking all things into consideration the ease would be dismissed.

The prosecutrix left the Court, seemingly somewhat surprised at His Worship’s decisionCIVIL casks. In the following cases judgment was given by default for the amounts claimed with costs Sederman v. Johnstone, claim .18 ; Jonas and others v. Xraiger, claim £G 12s ; McPherson v. Coekburn, claim £2l ; Godb} r and another v. Duval, claim £lO. Judgment for plaintiffs by default for £8; without costs. Burberry v. Scott, claim £t) Os lid, fur wages alleged to bo due. Mr Jameson for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersloy for the defendant, who pleaded not indebted the plaintiff having broken his contract; and further that the present summons was the lirst claim he had received, the plaintiff, who had been engaged to do harvest work by the defendant, having left without asking for his money.

■Judgment for plain till' for the amount claimed, without costs.

Share v. Thompson—Claim, £4 15s, for wages alleged to be due. It appeared that the plaintiff had been acting as barman for the defendant, the proprietor of the Pleasant Point Hotel. He had bean originally engaged for one day at the defendant’s booth at the Pleasant Point Paces. lie was afterwards re-engaged for a day or two, and then stopped on, the defendant affirmed, without any engagement being made between them further than that he was to be paid at the rate received by the former barman, viz., 35s per week. Subsequently he discharged the plaintiff offering him £3 as wages then due. This the plaintiff refused to accept unless he was paid one week’s wages in addition, in lieu of a weeks notice. The defendant refused to pay the additional sum, as he said he had never formally engaged the plaintiff.

His Worship considered that the agreement between the parties had not been proved. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for £3, but the additional weeks wages in lien of notice would not be allowed.

Judgment for plaintiff for £3, without costs. Jones and another v. Clayton—Claim, £1 14s. Judgment for defendant. Alprcssv. Brown —Claim, £1 5s o£d. J udgment for plaintiff. The Court then adjourned.