MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2266, 22 June 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TBIAIIU-THIS DAT

[Before R. Ucctbam, Esq., R.M.]

BARDENY OK Kill UTS

Win, Dyson, an old man witli white hair, was charged with stealing - six ilannel shirts of the value of 23s Gel, the property of Messrs (Jahites and Plante, drapers, Thnaru, on dune 21.

The accused pleaded guilty to the charge, but also pleaded destitution as his excuse.

In reply to his "Worship, the accused stated that he only arrived in Thnaru from Dunedin yesterday. He walked all the wry. lie was a tailor by trade, but could get nothing to do in Dunedin in consequence of the bad times. Inspector Pender said that nothing was known against the accused. Of course (hey had not hud time to communicate with the police authorities at Dunedin. The accused had no money on him when arrested. Xo further evidence was taken as to the larceny of the shirts, his Worship remarking that he would remand the accused until to-morrow in order that enquiries might be made respecting him. civil casks. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff, by default, with costs ; Shepherd v. Klliott —£14 3s (Id ; Same v. Goddard—£3 os; Dgilvie and another v. Henderson—£(! 14s 3d ; Crawford v. Hedge—los; Oedye and While v. Milbum —£o Hs 3d ; Dgilvie and another v. Planchett—£s 3s 4d ; The Mayor and others v. I’ott.omley—lbs; Same v. Hammond —£1 lOs ; Same v, iSheenan—£4 ;

White v. (J round water —L 22 On Gd

West v. Buckingham—Claim LIT Us 7d

Mi• Berry for plaintiff ; (lie defendant conducted bis own case and pleaded “ not indebted.”

It appeared that the plaintiff bad drawn out the plans and specifications fora store at Waimatefor the defendant. The agreement was that the plaintiff, a professional architect, was to receive 21 per cent, on the cost of erection and ho informed the defendant that if he was required to inspect the work, lie would charge afnrthercommission of 21 per cent. The defendant alleged that lie had told the plaintiff that he should not require las inspection, as lie intended to inspect the building himself. He had paid Mr "West the lirst 21 per cent., hut ho objected to pay the additionalisum, as ho had never authorised the inspection of the building by the plaintiff. After a considerable amount of argument on both sides, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £6 7s, no costs allowed except costs of Court.