MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2326, 31 August 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—'THIS DAV. (Before R. Beothaui, Esq., R.M.) ALLEGED PEK/UEY, Charles Loons was charged, on remand, with committing wilful and corrupt perjury, while giving evidence as a witness in a civil case, heard before Mr Bcetham, at the AVaimate li. M. Court, on Aug. 12. Mr White appeared to prosecute. Mr C. Perry appeared for the accused and urged that as the summons was only served upon him on Saturdajg and the District Court would sit to-morrow, this would give but a very short time in which to prepare the defence, should the accused be committed for trial. In the interests of his client, therefore, he must ask for a further remand, more especially as several important legal points might be involved in the case. The accused was remanded until Monday next, being admitted to bail in the sum of £SO, and one surety of a like amount. WIPE DESERTION. Francis Frederick Clayton was charged with deserting 1 1 is wife, Alice Clayton, and her four children, on Oct. 4,187 S). Inspector Pender prosecuted, and stated that the accused had only just been arrested. Alice Clayton, wife of the accused, stated that she had been living with her husband up to 1870. lie had left her on Nov. 17, throe weeks after her conlinoinent, and she had never seen him again until to-day. lie had written to her once but had never sent her any money. Her husband was a tailor by trade. She had four children and had had to maintain both them and herself on 5s per week since her husband left them.

The accused on being asked what excuse he', had to oilier in extenuation of his conduct, said he had gone away to look for work. He had been afraid to work for fear of being arrested.

In reply to his Worship, Inspector Pender stated that tho accused was given to drink. Since he went away his wife bad had a terrible struggle to maintain her children. No doubt tho accused could get work if he chose. The accused here stated, in reply to the Pencil, that he had been getting £3 a week formerly at his trade. He had an offer of work now.

Ilis Worship, addressing the accused, told him that the excuse he had put forward that lie could not obtain work for fear of being arrested was a most paltry one. It was monstrous that he should urge such a plea. If he could punish the accused without punishing his wife and family, he would certainly do so ; but he would do something else, and that was hold the fear of the law over his head by making an order that he should pay £2 per week towards the support of his family, the money to be regularly paid into Court, and the accused had better take care that he was never behind with his payments —even one week. And if he gave way to drink or otherwise neglected his family he would certainly receive six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. CIVIL CASES.

In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs : A 1 press v. Clarkson, Claim £2 11s Sd. Anderson v. "Walker, Claim .Cut) IGs 9d.

Green v. Ellison, Damages £9 lOs.l Mr Austin for plaintiff; Mr "White for defendant. The short facts of this ease were that on August 12, the plaintiff effected an exchange with the defandent, giving him a bay pony and 10s for another horse. The plaintiff according to the defendant’s evidence had a trial given and expressed himself as satisfied. The satisfaction docs not seem to have lasted however, for the plaint-ill stated that on harnessing the horse after the purchase it “laid down for two hours and stood up for two minutes.” The

plaintiff stated tbat he did not understand horses.

One witness for the plaintiff, stated : hat ho valued the horse at “ four pounds for the four legs.” Mr Durham, veterinary surgeon, and Inspector Pender wore also called as witnesses for the plaintiff: anil described die horse as crippled and foundered. Mr M. Jonas stated that he had sold the pony given in exchange for the horse in question, at his auction yards, ft realised £9 10s.

The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff; had had a trial given. The horse was “ a little stiff,” but bo gave no guarantee with it. He knew the horse was not quite sound. The horse was ill right so far as lie knew. His Worship called attention to the contradictory nature of the last statement of the witness. Mr White contended tbat as no guarantee was given or mentioned in the written agreement the plaintiff must be nonsuited. To prove fraud, concealment must be shown, and there had been no concealment.

Mr Austin having addressed the Bench, His Worship said that it was certainly a bard case, but, under the circumstances, he had no option but to nonsuit, the plaintiff. No costs, however, would bo allowed. llichards v. Hope, claim £l. Mr Austin for plaintiff ; Mr While for defendant, claim for photographing a public house and also the defendant’s son-iu-law. The plaintiff was nonsuited with costs. K. Wood and another v. E. Hope Claim £ll 10s. Air Austin for plaintiff; Mr "White for defendant. This was a claim for papers supplied, and advertising done. [Left sitting.]