MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2625, 19 August 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TDIAIiU—THIS DAY. (Before R. Beetham Esq R.M.„) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was discharged with a caution. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs : White and Jameson v. Creba, £l6 8s 4d; Cook r. Gillam, £l6 17s Gd ; Levels Road Board v. Henry Evans £2°. Howleyv. Union Shipping Company, £1 7s lOd. Mr Jameson appearing for defendants, applied for a re-hearing. Mr Howley objected. He had already been put to great inconvenience and judgment had been given. The re-hearing was granted, and fixed for August 30, £1 Is being allowed Mr Howley for expenses. Fonseca v. Boardmau—claim £1 2s lOd. Re-hearing granted for August 23. White and Jameson v. W. M. Rogers claim £5 ss, Adjourned on Mr Jameson’s application until Tuesday August 23. Austin v. Murphy—claim £2B 9s 6d. Adjourned to September 6, by order of the Court. Hinkley y. Murphy. Adjourned to August 23. I. Salek v James Corstan—Claim, £4 10s. In this case it appeared from the evidence given that the defendant’s wife had taken a gold watch, valued at £4 10s, on trial from the plaintiff. The watch had not proved a good timekeeper, and her husband, who had been unaware of the transaction, advised his wife to return it. The plaintiff objected to take the article back, and now sued for the recovery of its value. His Worship said that lie must give judgment for the defendant. Shopkeepers must not sell to married women, unless they were expressly authorised by their husbands to purchase. It was not necessary for the husband to advertise his irresponsibility. That was the law, and judgment would therefore

go for defendant, with costs of one witness, five shillings. Emma Hope v, John Glen—-Claim £IOO 1 Is 6d. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr Hamersley for defendant. , Emma Hope said that she was suing the defendant for 17 weeks board and lo Iging at 15s per week, and also for the amount due on property taken from her by defendant at a valuation. In April last the lease of the Stone stables was in her possession, and she arranged with the defendant that he should take over the stables and certain property as well at valuation, which was made by by Mr Wildie. Had not been paid anything by defendant but £l6, the rent of stables at Pleasant Point and this sum had been duly credited to him. Glen took possession of the stables on April 29, and on two occasions since plain!iff had hired buggies and horses from him which were included in the valuation. Defendant had lately told plaintiff that the things were valued too high and had refused to take them. The buggy shed included on the list was not a fixture on the place, and if Glen had not consented to take it when he took the stables plaintiff would have removed it. In consequence of Mr Beetham being summoned away to Christchurch the case was adjourned, and the Court rose.