MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2719, 6 December 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before K. Beetham, Esq., R.M. E. El worthy, and T. W. Hall, Esqr’s J.P.’s. drunkenness. James McKerrow, who had been before His Worship several times before on the same charge, was lined 20s or in default 48 hours imprisonment for being drunk and disorderly. NEGLECTING A WIFE. John Wilson was charged with neglecting ta comply with an order made by the Court at Kaiapoi in October, 1880, requiring him to pay 12s a week towards the support of his wife and three children, aged respectively six, four, and three years. The accused

had paid nothing since May 23 last, Mrs Wilson was now living with relations in Timaru.

Accused excused his disobedience by saying that he had been cheated in a horse transaction, and further that the Court at Kaiapoi would not take the mone). Mr Beetham said this last was an assertion which needed some confirmation.

The evidence of Mrs Wilson having been taken an order was made that the arrears be paid up, and that he find two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court that ho will comply with the order, in default to be imprisoned with hard labor for six months, or until such sureties were found.

Accused asked if he could be allowed to go to Kaiapoi to sell his horses. Mr Beetham said he could not go before he found the sureties required. He had no business to disobey the order as he had done, and allow so many arrears to accumulate. It was high time that people were taught that they cannot leave ther wives and families with impunity. Wilson began to expostulate and argue with the Bench, whereupon Mr Beetham ordered him to be removed from the Court at once. Civil Cases. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs by default:— Tosswill v. Mrs Hope, claim £3 14s, costs 7s; J. W. Plugge v. J. Rankin, claim £3, costs £2. APPLICATION FOR EEHEAEING. Mr Tosswill applied, on behalf of F. Scoringe, stevedore, for a rehearing of the case decided last week—E. Smith v. Scoringe. Affidavits were put in by Scoringe asserting that he being a foreigner could not put his case properly before the Court. Mr Tosswill said he had fresh evidence to bring forward. Mr Perry appeared on behalf of Mr Smith to' oppose the application. Scoringe, he argued, was as much a foreigner now as before, and he ought to have known that he could not put his own case. Neither side engaged counsel at the hearing. He went into the question of evidence, and said that bo far as the affidavits showed there was no evidence to be brought forward that could not have been obtained at the first hearing. Mr Beetham referred to bis notes and agreed with Mr Perry as to the evidence and be remembered that Scoringe had been in Court several times, and showed then a pretty fair knowledge of the procedure. The application was refused. R. Webster v. G-. Smith, claim £4 10s 2d.

This case was brought into Court to settle the amount of a set-off for work done. Defendant claimed £3 for work done, and plaintiff only allowed £2. The Bench split the difference, and gave judgment for £2 Os 2d. J. Scott v. D. Heffiernan, claim £lO or return of a greyhound rained at that sum, and detained by defendant. Mr White for plaintiff, and Mr Tosswill for defendant. In this case the eridence showed that plaintiff lost a greyhound slut on Sept. 6 last, and advertised his loss two days later. He afterwards learned that that Heffernan was detaining the dog. He applied for it, and Heffernan refused to give it up, unless the plaintiff paid him £7 —£6 10s for the dog’s keep for thirteen weeks, and 10s for a registration fee he had paid. Plaintiff refused to pay this claim, and defendant refused to give up the dog. Defendant said he got the dog from a man named Coyne at Temuka in the latter end of August, Coyne telling him it was a stray one. He valued the dog at £2. Mr Toswill called two witnesses who valued the dog at from 30s to 40s,

The evidence having been taken, Mr White asked that judgment be given for £lO, to be reduced to nothing if the dog were returned within a certain time. Mr Tosswill asked that the value of the dog should be fixed and an order made that the dog be returned or the value so fixed paid. The Bench made an order that the dog be returned to plaintiff on or before the 10th inst. at Heffernan’s house, or in defalt defendant to pay the value of the dog, £lOs, defendant to pay costs.