RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

j FillDATf, NOVEMBKK 15TH; ; (Before tho Hon. A.lt. C. Strode, IOL) ! Drunkenness.—A man named James I Wilson, charged with having been drunk and disorderly, was fined 10a. ! Assault.—John Duff was charged with j assaulting his wife. The complainant's statement *v;is that, on the previous night, defendant came home drunk, and abused and assaulted her, striking her, kicking her, and threatening hi>r life. The defendant denied any recollection of the circumstances. The Magistrate severely admonished the defendant upon i his persistent ill-treatment of bin wife, ! who had had frequent occasion to bring (similar complaints before the Court; and for his brutal conduct on this occasion, sentenced him to two months' itnpriaonment, with bard labor. civil'oases. William M'Kendrick >■. Henry Wilson. — A claim of LI9 17s 2d, alloyed to be due, as wages. Judgment for the defendant.

Fox and Holmes r. Campbell.—ln this case, which bad been adjourned from Wednesday last, the Magistrate gave the following judgment: —

I have considered the point urged by tbe defendant's iw>liciU>r why judgment in this matter should go for the defendant, viz. : — That Kobertson shouli have bc«n called by iho jjlointiiFio prove that lie dcclimd to receive tlie clover need for the r< anon assigned by the plaint i fid (i.e., ihu delay in carrying it tn its destination), ami for no other reason ; and I am of opinion that there is no force in the objection. I consider, upon a review of the evidence, that the plaintiffs proved an ample ense for the defendant to anwer. Hu had an opportunity of aiia-.vurii>^ it by hm attending hero on Wednesday hist; but b.is iailcd to avail hniiMt.'if of that opportunity. I am of opinion .that, in case of iiobertnon having refused the goods for some, oth>-re»uAo than iiiiit assigned l>y the plaintitfii, it was for tlio defendant to have brought him hare to prove that fact, it having bten da»tinctly isworn by the plaintiffs that tho clover b*:ed in (|uc«tion was l brown back on the plaintiffji1 hande by Kobcrtson for tho reason set up by them, and for no other reaaon. Under all the cireußMtaucca, it certainly Would liave l>f<sn preferable to mo to have heard the defendant's evidence ; but as he ha,i whut himself out from that advantage, without any valid reason for bo doing, tho plaintiff* are. not to suffer by hia neglect. Such txjing my opinion, tbe only question remaining for consideration ia the amount of damages .the plaintifffi are entitled to—which, according to the evidence, amounts to LSG 10s. Judg* int-iit for plaiatiffd, Lst> 10a, together with costs.