MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2947, 5 September 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARIJ—THIS DAY.

(Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.)

DISOBEYING AN OBDBE OF COUET. William Grant, a colored man, was charged by Louisa Grant, his wife, with neglecting to support her; Mr H. 8. Austin appeared for plaintiff.

As accused bad paid over some money the case was withdrawn. BBBACH OF THE DOG EEGIBTBATION ACT. - Mesdaraes Creamer and Mcßae, J. Lawry, G. Bryan, P. Murphy, R. Bartlett were charged with having unregistered dogs in their possession. They were each fined twenty shillings for each dof. Mrs Mcßae and J. Lawry did not appear, LEAVING BAILWAY OATES OPEN. John Mason and Richard Hosking were charged with committing this offence, near Mr Raymond’s dairy, Waimaitaiti. Thomas Gladwin, platelayer, testified that he saw the boys pass through and ' ! leave the gates open behind them, and also that Hosting refused to give his name when asked to do so. Mr Raymond (the employer of the offenders) appeared on their behalf to dispute the correctness of the witness’ statement. Richard Hosting being called,, said the gate was left open by him for about five minutes. He refused his name because he did not know what it could be wanted for. His Worship said there was no doubt the gates * had been left open by accused, and he would inflict a fine of ten shillings on the older, and five shillings on the younger accused. They must remember that, should they appear again, they would probably be fined ten pounds each. Mr Raymond said he had made repeated applications to the department to make a proper crossing without avail. , CIVIL cases. White and Jameson v. J. Holloway, ■■ claim £7 13s 6d. Mr Jameson for plaintiffs, J. W. White, being sworn, said the defendant owed the amount as specified. The defendant then made a statement to the effect that plaintiff had agreed to “ put him through ’’ for £lO, that he had paid such £lO, and there was no further claim against him ; but ho was ' directed by His Worship to ask questions, not to make a statement. Witness continued—The account now .in question was for other matters, not , - the bankruptcy.

(Defendant here banded in a receipt for what ho alleged to he the only other money he had ever owed plaintiffs, but witness showed that this did 1 not refer to the amount now sued for.) . . Witness continued —My firm never made any arrangement with anyone to “ put anybody through ’’ for £lO. _ His Worship here requested defendant to get into the box. . ■ John Holloway (defendant), who evidently did not properly understand the case, protested that he knew nothing of it, but His Worship said it was plain the amount was actually due, and gave judgment for plaintiffs, with costs. Defendant left the box, apparently in a state of mingled astonishment and' incredulity. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiff by default W hite and Jameson v. McDonald, claim £3 5s lOd ; Same v. Trengrove, £7 15s lOd ; Same v. Harris, £3 15s 4d ; Shepherd’s Trustee v, McFarlane, £4 Us 7d; Cowan and Foster y. Booth, £3 0s 5d ; J. G. Allen v. Thiele, £37 12s 9d ; Maclean and Stewart v. Forbes, £7 12s 6d.

Shepherd’s Trustees v. Parsons, claim £52 2s 3d, was adjourned for seven days.. The Court then rose.