RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 16th January, 1864. (Before M. Price, Esq., li._M.) DnuNKT;NNESS ; — One person was fined 5s for. this offence. A; Stowaway— Gould Scott, was charged by J. P. Moore, the Master of the Craigeyar, with fraudulently obtaining a passage from Sydney. The prosecutor, stated; that the defendant had stowed, liimself away in.the ship, and did not appear on deck until she was entering tlie New River Heads.; Thej defendant stating to the Bench that the mate of the ship -bad given" him permission to como over as. a .stowaway, the Ben'jh adjourned the ease to* Monday, to enable the mate; to give evidence. - ? j Recovered.— Alfred Oakey, who hacl been remanded for medical advice, while suffering from a mental afHiciion, was.,brought up, and the evidence of Drs. M'Clure and Murray being fully satisfactory 7 .'that he was perfectiy recovered/the Bench discharged him. CIVIL cases.^" ■*: ,-*■.*• HVIiGIN AND GARTHXVArTE V STEWART. — Mr Harvey appeared for the plaintiffs, who brought the action to recover £15- 13s nnder the following circumstances ,— The former partnership of the plaintiffs (Hargin vnd Jaggers) had t.iken the responsibility of endorsing a bill for £118 from Mr Hoskins, late of the ; Criterion Hotel, to"? the 'defendant, bn condition tii at : the defendant' p:dd tliem' the £18, less the discount for the bill. The bill was duly taken- up by Mr Hoskins when it arrived at miturity, but defendant refused ;to pay plaintiffs the amount lie had 'consented to pay. Little or no defence was offered by tlie defendant for repudiating,' except a statement uncorroborated by auy evidence, tint one of the firm of Hargin and-Jaggers— Mr Jaggers — had offered to purchase the bill i:: the first ins ance. The Bench gave a verdict for the amount claimed. r Same v Casu*bei*l — £19 19s. "Verdict by default.

.Saturday, January 16th, 1854. Drunkenness. — Two persons wers fined for this offence. ; , ; .. , - :._ .- : r . ■ , Refusing to Obey Orders. — James Lee, a seaman belonging to.the .Ewald, was brought up for refusing to go on board. The Bench ordered him to be taken aboard, the ship.; . '■ . The Perils of Partnership.— Robert Cook, was charged by Marcus Gunn: with having stolen or received his property, consisting, .of horses, .- drays, harness, ,&c; Mr South appeared for the prosecution; Mi Button for, the prisoner.. The particulars .of the case were, that ths prosecutor and a man named M'Kenzie had formerly been, in partnership as contractors. At the termination of their -work, McKenzie— according, to the evidence of the prosecutor — had given over therproperty in:q_uestion to the prisoner. According to the statement of M'Kenzie to the Court, he had sold the property to ' the prisoner, "with the'sancticn of - his partner^ In cross-examination by Mr South, he stated that he had only received £10 cash for the ;sale;iand accepted a bill for;the;remainder at six months. He denied that the property solely belonged -. to the prosecutor, and had been purchased by him before the partnership commenced. Mr South encfeavoied to show that there had been criminal collusion between the prisoner 'and^'M'KeSzie; had only received £10 cash for- -property, worth, £400, arid asked for a remaiid of the case for further evidence. .The- Bench t.'bj ected to a remand on the ground that there was no evidence iof any felonious in tent; by the jprisoner,, who had bought the proper tiy in a perfectly legal manner f roW'MSKenzie. s'The -"prisoner w*as discharged. It was arranged between^ the counsel 7 on either -side A the paxfnSrship accounts of the firm should, be settled up and the pi'operty in 1 quesUdn Accounted for;*"" ' :