MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2245, 28 May 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TTMARU—THIS HAY. (Before Pi. Beotham, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Three first offenders were each fined ss. F IOIITING IN A PUBLIC PLACE. Just before the rising of the Court, two young men wore brought up charged by Constable Brady, with fighting in the open street. His Worship said that the accused had acted in a very improper manner. If they had any little grievance to settle their could be no objection to resorting to their indulging In encounter at fisticuffs, but they had no right to intrude their quarrels on the public and in the open street. They would be fined 5s each. The money was paid. CIVIL CASKS, White v. Allpress. This case had boon settled at a previous sitting of: the Court, when judgment was given for the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently asked for a rehearing, which was granted and ii::cd for to-day. Mr White now intimated his willingness to open the case, or to consider it closed, and adjourned merely for argument.

Mr Hamersley appeared for the defendant.

The case was then preceded with. Mr Hamersley contended that the defendant and his brother—Jonathan and diaries Allpress—had assigned the property to James Shepherd, storekeepor, Tirnaru, and that their joint and separate estates had been so assigned. Mr White contended that the assignment was of the debts of the firm exclusively, and did not release them from their separate and private debts. His Worship said he would reserve his decision. Hutchinson v White, claim £45.

Mr Toswill, for plaintiff, put in the testimony of George Hutchinson, taken in Christchurch, for whom his firm had been acting. The claim was for goods alleged to have been wrongfully seized. The defendant submitted that the goods belonged to the firm of Sims and Hutchinson, and were seized and sold under bill of sale. The sale took place on January 27th, and no demand was made till February 19th. G. H. Wildie gave evidence of the sale of some cider and other liquors at Sims’ store, and stated that Hutchinson’s son was present when the goods were disposed of. Mr White deposed that Hutchinson and Sims were partners at the time. Mr Tosswill called rebutting testimony on this point. F. A. Sims deposed that he had been a wine and spirit merchant, but that in consequence of certain conditions not having been complied with he never entered into partnership with Hutchinson, for whom they were stored by witness, There was no such firm as Sims, Hutchinson and Co.

The case was adjourned for argument on Tuesday.