MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2664, 4 October 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

T [MAR U—THIS DAY, (Before E. ISeetham, Esg., E.M.) Dl’.r.VKt'NNI.S*. Two women were lined As each for being intoxicated in public places. One of them, who appeared with an infant in her arms, in pleading guilty to the “soft impeachment, r promised to go and take the pledge at imoe if she were allowed to go home to her children. She had previously been twice before the Court, and was now threatened with imprisonment without the option of a line if she appeared again. alu-gud ji.uxisr:si;i: \ling. Charles Raker and Joseph Capstick were brought up under arrest, charged with stealing two horses. Air Jameson appeared for the prosecutor, Wm. Denison of Wai-iti, and asked for a remand, to obtain evidence as to ownership, one of the horses belonging to a man in Christchurch, and the other to a man in Ashburton. The facts of the case, as he understood them, waw that the Lavo men wove in the employ of the prosecutor, and on Saturday hast, they were told to cake ahorse and dray to Timaru, and to lead two other horses to town, which wore to be forwarded to Ashburton. They took I’l.Q two led horses according tci laTvueRons, but put two horses in thfc dray, and when they go.t to town they put these pvta Wtkhe Alliau and Stumbles’ yards and sold thorn by auction during the afternoon. In reply to the Bench Inspector Pender said he believed tho ruca sold tiie ’horses under an lnr,pvossion that they hsr, right to do so in order to vccuio the wages due to thorn. One of the men. claimed ns much as £: ; :0 for wages from Denison. His Worship said that this being the case ho would make the bail light—one surety in two bonds of £SO each. ‘ CIVIL : ASKS; Judgment by default was given in the following cgsos - Evans and others V D, 11. hkmcavi, claim ill .Ms (id, costa ; RlnM os v T. Hard castle, ehnhn i.'E;, cn.H.s IM Lis; JEnckley v \V. Taler, claim £l:3 Is LOG, costs IP Ki : Stiinsell v Jehu King', claim £.lO 17s G.l, cost? £1 M, E. Erani s v T. Hampscm, claim £1 Gs, indgliieul gimnons. Defendant ordered ; to [v.{\ within one month ; in default : tme weeh’s imprisonment. Rutter v Ih.ird, claim £BS Is, was ad’ti,! u :m'! ;; 'lie I.Bth, the vlcfendant H- -I. hih rdeinßE ttc-.i.jar u . .i-werc ’;;is. M of dm -itiilimoacy of Ac ' !■; "ee s no eewdney : o give ::!:a ovo- I * jriiie. i R. At,;; i * !.v:e and Kingston, I cl. on i: e lie Gd. '.'or damages sc.stab ed • th . . ; h {;,•■•:•.<•!; of traci. ] -.hi ■■ • ;.:;V d"t ML!':;.;:-: Bad (■ ■■ oleo'iid ■; n, ‘ j

■ by the. South Caxtei;uuuy Times, and provision was made in the lease that tlie plaintiff should he supplied with motive power for printing the paper, and further (hat he should not sub-lot or pare with the possession of the premises without the consent in writing of the lessors. The plaintiff parted with the paper and plant to Mr Kerr, but as the defendants refused to consent to a transfer of the lease of the promises when asked, the plaintiff retained possession of them, parting only with the paper and plant. On Mr Kerr taking possession of the paper, the defendants, without notice, discontinued supplying the motive power for printing, and the damages sued for were for loss of tho use, of a large printing machine and expenses incurred. At the hearing of tin- case it was contended on the part of the defendants that the plaintiff’s parting with the possession of the paper meant parting with possession of the premises upon whish the paper was printed. If is Worship now gave judgment : Counsel on both sides had probably ; found :i: impossible to refer him to any C-v c;-. ..c ;:•••:• "... ,u obliged to do '. r -,~.v -r. •• :,x.. not such assist- • mx-.. ;• :;. ; s . | ;..v; o die question was < w.:et’ r.. ii.; ..iri.Mxr l-ul parted with ; px"-'ix M. the premises to Kerr. : j.Lei-: • .v nr. xnxi.div k evidence that kx,.x.ix v. :v . • 'lx mpation of a 'p- • ■■■'■■ t xxxc..' possession ; .-!«. x, r ae rod, equal t. .os ojs.c.r. !. k: v-voic,. Furthcr’■l t-:. yiiiVee-i. xxcuiex between • ’•xaiii'.i- 5 mx .J-.cv.. roio-rrod solely to Bra imwrrapcv ana plant; and tho , a.g-eerxut lAy xu ills parties to the xxe : Ci. -cxei. x acre no ante to supply , i,..c mci’.ye uewe: .:r xivahiig the C ..... . rrn . , ojb.,'.m v. >,'.•» j-s or any : c-iucr ncwsur/itcr: uuelishod on the r/jom.zoi. There was nothing to : prevent x:.o pi.ai. .hr fecrc leasing : tire piaut io any-;.no 7rhc chose ' tc m.:bo aura: .gsaaonta with him for carry .ng on ihs. paper. Such a ' iir.ncfc:-; r. o'lilc. he curie icinpatitle with I. cccux linedescuptt.cr. olrxa promiye®.. axr. xc xc7c ccniinucd in. oeoupMxn cr at Ica-i a park and that ko r- .ii.-.*j. i.. tr.—..X.:.,:c:c:cx to he equal ic '■ontinuiug in possession of the whole, although it was a matter he was a little uncertain about. The amount sued for did not seem to be called into question, and judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. As the case was purely one of law this decision might be appealed against. Mr Jameson said he had not the slightest objection to an appeal being lodged. Cuthbcrtsou v. Burgess, claim £8 Is (id. Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for defendant. r I his case was hoard a fortnight ago. and plaintiff not proving his case, was granted a nonsuit to enable him to obtain further evidence. He was again unsuccessful, and judgment was given for defendant, with costs. It. Sibly v. Simmons, claim £lO 1 is Gd.

Mr Tosswill l‘or plaintiff, and Mr Jameson for defendant. Part of t.' e sain claimed was paid into Court, ihe amount m dispute was a sum paid by ho plaintiff for medical attendance or. bc.nJf of the defendant a year age., ui.ich lie now sought to got refunded. it appeared from defendant’s account that he_ was temporarily employed by the plaintiff, and while engaged in his business accidentally broke his le'% Plaintiff took him to a doctor and promised to pay the doctor for his attendance, and did so. Plaintiff, on tho oilier hand, denied that defendant was in his employment when the accident happened, and h«» only paid the doctor on Iris behrfff, without accepting the responsibility. Defendant had by letter ac'kjwwlodged his indebtedness for the amount in dispute, and on this ground judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. Armitage v. (iosling. iMr Kciil for plaintiff - an j yj; r ii auJcrs . Icy for defendant. In this case, «& stated by Mr Ileicl, a claim was nrulc* for damages sustained through broach of contract to depasture 300 ewci tzr two months. The defendant agreed to depasture tho sheep for two months at i ,;d per head per week in oeitain paddocks, one of winch was to V>s kept clear of stock until the other was eaten down. The second paddock wae not so kept, and defendant's lease of th* other expired when the two months were only l>nli expired, so that he had to remove the sheep, and ultimately the. plaintiff had to take them home anti obtain other pasturage at a higher prite. -d per head per week. In the removal’ of the sheep by defendant it was asserted that great carelessness had been manifested, resulting in injmy through losg of lambs. ; ! ofi sitting, j