MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2497, 22 March 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

XIMAEU—THIS DAY. (Before R. Beetham Esq., R.M.) AN INDIGNANT FATHER. v Inspector Pender applied for an order of the Court re-committing Elizabeth and Margaret Collins, two young girls to the Burnham Industrial School until they attained the age of 21 years. The Inspector said the girls were committed to the school originally in 1876, and their term of detention had now very nearly expired. He would therefore ask for their re-committal to Burnham, as the parents were not fit to look after them, and the master of the Industrial School would stand iri loco parentis. His Worship asked the father, a gray-haired man, whether he had any objection to his girls going back to the school.

The father said he tad the strongest possible objection, he had a home for the girls to come to and could easily find them situations. To send the girls hack to the school would be an exceedingly cruel thing. His worship said that if the father could satisfy nim as to his character he would listen to him. The father, who had become a good deal excited, said his children were seventeen years of age and were old enough to be married,and he objected to their being sent back to the school to he “ dogged” by the master. It was a cruel thing to send the girls away, and he (Collins) “doubted whether the Governor had power to order his girls to be shut up against their fathers will.” The order was made, the father protesting in a very audible manner, until he left the Court. In a few minutes he returned, and commenced to complain again, and his Worship ordered him to be put out, telling him that i£ he came back again, and created a disturbance he would be taken into custody. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs : Davies and another v Shields, £2 2s; Mclntyre v Hobbs, £66 9s; J. Bruce v Turnbull, £1 4s 9d ; Same v. J. Beilly, £4 13s lOd. Lambert v Marshall, £4. This was adjourned until April 8, by plaintiff, on payment of costs of adjournment, £8 18s. Two other cases were struck out owing to the non-ap-pearance of the parties. Bell v Hay—Claim £l9 10s. Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr Haraersley for defendant. The facts of this case were as follows :—Both plaintiff and defendant are draughtsmen, and formerly worked in the Survey office, Christchurch, together. Some time since the plaintiff took a contract to prepare certain maps. It was necessary that some of the work in connection with the maps should be done in Timaru, and as the defendant was leaving Christchurch for Timaru he was asked by tbe plaintiff to undertake this work. Nothing was arranged with regard to remuneration further than that the work was to be done at a fair and reasonable rate. The plaintiff alleged that he bad taken a great deal of trouble with the maps, and asserted that the work had been done in a satisfactory manner, but on receiving his bill the defendant had objected to the charge as excessive. The whole question at issue therefore resolved itself into whether the plaintiff’s charge was a fair and reasonable one or not.

Several witnesses ; (professional men) were called for the plaintiff as experts who estimated the value of the work done at from £2O. to £3O. The evidence of ,the defendant had been given in’ Christchurch. The defence set up was, briefly, that the maps in question had been examined by seVeral professional men in Christchurch, and the highest estimate was that the work was worth £7. . •

Mr Hainersley having addressed the Court at some length for the defendant, Mr Jameson said he would leave the case in his Worship’s handsHis Worship remarked m giving his decision, referring to the conflicting nature of the , evidence, that it was no easy matter to . decide when doctors disagreed, In Christchurch tbe professional men called in had been unanimous in fixing the value of the work at .£7, while here the experts consulted hadheemequally unanimous in estimating the value at from £2O to £3O. But in the face of such positive evidence as had been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, evidence of wholly disinterested and unbiassed men, he had no other course than to give judgment for the amount claimed with costs (to-day’s expenses) £l2 0s Bd. Mr Jameson then applied for costs of a previous adjournment. Mr Hamersley denied that the adjournment had been occasioned by his client, who could not, therefore, be held responsible for these costs. This discussion was proceeding when went to press.