MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2438, 11 January 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

o— TIMAEU—THIS DAY,

[Before R. Beetham Esq, HAL, and E. G. Kerr Esq., J.B.T LARCENY OE A HAND SAW. Tljos. Carol! was charged with the larceny of a hand saw valued Bs, the property of George William Clarke. The accused pleaded not guilty. Detective Kirby deposed to arresting the accused at his house in Sophia Street this morning, lie denied the theft, and witness thereupon searched the house and discovered the saw produced. It was wrapped up in the bed clothes. The prosecutor identified the saw produoed as his property.

The accused still denied the theft and called a witness named Connor to prove that he had not stolen the saw found in his house. This witness’ evidence was not of muck avail, however, and the Bench considered the charge clearly proved. The accused was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment with hard labor.

CIVIL CASKS. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs : Guthrie and Larnaeh v 11. Smith, £0 Ids 4d, judgment for £2 14s ; Harris v Anderson, £3. Taylor v lingers—Judgment summons.

The plaintiff pleaded that he had been waiting for a very long time for his money, and he was of opinion that that the defendant never intended to pay him. He was, in witness’ opinion quite able to settle up, as he was iu the habit of buying considerable quantities of poultry and fruit for his shop. The Bench told the defendant that this was a serious ease and very similar, in fact, to the one for which ho got 12 months’ imprisonment at the Supreme Court. It was a very had case, and lie would be ordered to pay this money in one week from date with the alternative of two month’s imprisonment.

Kitchie v. Corcoran —Claim £55 10s. Mr A. Perry for plaintiff and Mr Hamerslev for defendant-

This was a claim for damages for sheep alleged to have been killed and worried by defendant’s dogs. The plaintiff’s station manager ami the defendant having been examined, judgment was given for plaintiff for £l4 15s with costs.

Godb} r and Tosswill v. Baird, claim £OO 15s 9d.

Mr White for plaintiff ; defendant conducted his own case.

Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Tate v. Dowd, claim £4O 10s. Mr White for plaintiff ; MrKnubley for defendant.

This was a claim for balance alleged to be due on monies paid. The defence was, briefly, that the accused had not been rendered within a fair and reasonable time after the debt was incurred.

Judgment for plaintiff for £45, Court costs allowed.