MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2332, 7 September 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIIIABU—THIS DAY. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) a neighbours squahrlf. • Fredrick Boyce was charged with assaulting John Barker on September I. There was also a cross-action for assault. Mr Jameson for plaintiff; Mr Austin for defendant. This was a neighbours quarrel which had originated in an exchange of disparaging remarks between the parties, leading to blows and further trouble. After hearing the evidence His Worship remarked that it was a pity that persons with cases of this kind should think fit to bring their dirty linen to Court to wash before the public. There had evidently been faults on both sides but he thought I hat by the time the parties had paid their solicitors fees and taken the time lost over these proceedings into consideration, they would be punished enough, and he would not therefore inflict lines as he might have done. Both eases would be dismissed. another xrrsuxnerstaxi > ixg. Eli Tresslc was charged with assaulting A. McAlister. The accused admitted striking the complainant with his open hand. Both parties appeared in rather an excited state in Court, the defendant particularly. His Worship remarked that the defendant had, by his own showing, struck thc complainant and no provocation laid been proved. The defendant had no right to take the law into his own hands. If he had any real grievance against the complainant he had his remedy at law. He would be lined os for the assault and costs 38s, or in default be imprisoned for 48 hours. The defendant was beginning to grumble about His Worship's decision, when he was ordered to pay his fine and say no more about it. Tire money was paid. CIVIL CASES.

11l the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs : Smith v. Crane, claim £G 17s Gd ; Baird and another v. Orton, claim £7 12s Gd. Judgment for£3 2s. Lyons v. Taugucy, claim £B2 ; Hamerslej v. Hayes, claim £36 19s Gd ; Bichards v. Thompson, claim £1 15s, for a dozen photos. Judgment for defendant with costs. Levy v. Baiuc, claim £3 12s.

Stanscll v. Stephenson, claim £3 8s balance due for advertising the Byronic Comedy Company. Mr Hamcrsley for plaintiff; Mr He id for defendant. In this case heard some time back, judgment was given for the plaintiff, but subsequently a re-hearing was i granted as it was alleged that Miss Stephenson was a married woman and was merely a paid servant of the company. Caroline Wills, otherwise known as Clara Stephenson, stated that she was engaged by Alexander, the proprietor of the company, for one month. She was to receive a fifth share of the nightly receipts and half a clear benefit. She had no other salary or interest in the company. She was married about six years ago, and at the time the the action was brought against, her her husband was in Sydney. Mr Hamcrsley would not ask for judgment against Mils Stephenson, but would proceed against Alexander. Mr Bead applied for bis client’s travelling expenses and costs of attendance amounting to 455. Mr Hamcrsley contended that the plaintiff bad no right to pay Miss Stephenson’s expenses. Had she not led the world to suppose that she was a single woman all this trouble would have been avoided. Judgment for defendant. The Bench refused to allow costs. J. Scott v. Union S.S. Company— Claim £5. Mr Austin for plaintiff ; Mr C. Perry for defendant. In tin’s case the plaintiff sued for the value of a case of glass shipped in the s.s. Wellington, and which was broken, as it was alleged, in transit. His Worship reserved his decision. The Court then adjourned.