LAW AND POLICE.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— Thursday. [Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq., B.M.] The weekly sitting of the Court was held this morning, and the following business disposed of: — Undefended Cases (Jcidqment for Plaintiffs). —C. C. Fleming v. E. E. Snow, £14 lis Gd ; Henry Boyd v. Robert Look,|£l9 ; Robert Bigham v. Abel Fletcher, £4 9s 2d ; Wm. McAarthur and Co. v. George Bryett, £34 143 Bd. Non Suit. —Harry King v. W. B. Warnop, £2 12s. Adjourned.—Brown, Barrett and Co. v. Francis Houlihan, £25; A. M. Buckland v. A. Farquhar, £5; Peter Brown v. Daniel Callaghan, £5 ISi 3d. defended cases. Richard Ash v. William Gibbon.— Claim £4 7s 6d. Mr. Tyler for plaintiff, Mr. S. Hesketh for defendant. This was a claim to recover the purchase money of a horse, under the following circumstances.

The plaintiff aaid he purchased a horae in Haater and Nolan's yard, the horse to standing a test to draw 13 cwt. oat of the yard. The defendant came up to him, and offered him 53 for his bargain, which the plaintiff took; because if the horse did not stand the trial it was unnecessary to take it. The horse was ' * knocked down " to plaintiff, and the defendant was to pay for it the next day or two. But a week after the defendant sent the horse buck, because it was "too Blow for hia use. Plaintiff refused to take it back to the sale-yard, and defendant's son tiedit in a blacksmith's yard for 36 hours. horae was not bought by the defendant subject to a veek's trial. Th 9 defendant, in answer, said that the horse was bought by him subject to a week's trial. Sent the horse back to the defendant before the week was up, because it did not suit him. The parties deposed at considerable length to the conversations upon which each relied as establishing either of these views. The plaintiff called" a witness named William Scott, who was subjected to a rigorous examination by Mr. T'flsr upon certain contradictory statementa'he made. The defendant called his son, who bronght back the horse to the plaintiff, and deposed to certain conversation. His Worship was of opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the claim. Nonsuited, with Co3ts (£3 5s 6d). _ John" Holt v. David Taylor.—Claim, £1. Neither party was represented by counsel. The claim was for rent and repairs. The defendant said he was turned out of the house without notice; that the plaintiff used bad language and frightened hia wife, plaintiff being drunk at the time. The plaintiff denied this, and retorted the imputation of being drunk. The plaintiff said he did give notice after he ordered the defendant "to go." His Worship, having summed up tho evidence, nonsuited the plaintiff. Sou Mi v. Ah Bing.—Claim, £9. Mr. Laishley for plaintiff; Mr. S. ife3keth for defendant. This was a re-hearing of a case tried before the Court on the 29th nit. Tha facts of the case were brief and simple, but the proceedings were very peculiar, which might have been anticipated, seeing that bo'.h pirties are Chinese, or "members of the Celestial Empire," that two of their numbers had to act as interpreters (one for each side). The witnesses were also all Chinese, as will be readily understood by the mention of their names—Ah Yin, Ah Yoo, How Sui, Ya Kune, and others unnameable. Tne first difficulty to be settled was how the witnesses were to be sworn, as some of them, it was said, did not believe in a future state. The form of oath that seemed to ba mo3t acceptable was, that two candles should be lighted on the table, then that a cock should be placed between them, that the deponent should kill the cock, cut his head blow out the lights. It turned out, however, that one of the interpreters said he was naturalised, was a Christian, and ready to swear on the English Bible. This Bimple fact was a solvent of the difficulty, for this person undertook to administer the oath to all the witnesses in a manner that they would consider " binding on their consciences." The form in which it was done was as follows : —The interpreter obtained a lucifer match, which he lighted, reciting a Chinese formula in a semi-rythmical tone. When this was done he held the match to the witness's mouth, and the witness blew it out. The facts elicited were, that the plaintiff lent the defendant £13 to set up a cousin a3 a gardener, and a sum of £4 was paid back in a week. Ah Bing is a member of a firm of Chinese, known as the Ah Kew and Company, who preferred a claim against Sou Mi for £5 103 for board and lodging. Sou Mi, however, had sometime before lent this firm £100, and was paid back partly in cash and partly in goods. Ah Bing, when asked by the plaintiff to pay the balance, said he could not if the firm would not pay. They would satisfy their claim. But the. plaintiff said he lent the money to Ah Bing without reference to the company. Ah Bing said the money was placed in his hands as a member of the firm to take care of for plaintiff; that plaintiff being indebted to the firm the amount wa3 stopped. The plaintiff said he was going to Napier, and Ah Bing telegraphed that plaintiff went there to "swindle" people. But the plaintiff came back and brought his action. During the course of the proceedings there was a necessity that the Court should have it "clearly" before it whether the "money was lent" or "left with" the defendant, and a regular tribe of Chinese literati volunteered to explain the celestial vernacular, and there arose such a chorus of nasal sounds (yong, yaug, ying, ya, he, yoo) in very unmusical key outside the " constellation the lawyers were puzzled, and contributed their individual portions to the prevailing obscurity. The interpreters were absolute, arrayed in pouterbosomed shirt-fronts and chanting pigeon English. At length a lucid interval arrived, and the Court adjourned for lunch at 1 o'clock. At 2 o'clock the Court re-assembled. The case was resumed, the witnesses were called and gave their several recitals of the facts, coch one blowing out a lucifer match to begin with. His Worship arrived at the conclusion that there was a " loan " andnot a "bailment." The parties retired to consider the basis of settlem;nt. The following

arrangement was made : Judgment for p'a'iitiiY : All Kew and CJ- to sae for £5 10.-3. Execution to be stayed meantime. The cros3-case to be heard oil Monday n-xfc. POLICE COURT.—Thcrstjay. [Before It. C. Rarsto*v, Esq., K. M ] Drunkenness. —-Three persona were punished for this offence. Larceny.—Charles El ward Stewart was charged with stealing a coat and muffler value £5, the property of Henry McCade. Prisoner pleaded that he did not remember anything about it. Mr. Pardy said the accused went to the Army and Navy Hotel to lodge, and watching his opportunity he stole the coat and muffler from the bedroom, and pawned them at Mr. Rae's. Mr. McCade deposed that he lodged at the Army and Navy Hotel. He missed his coat and comforter yesterday morning. The coat produced was his property, but the muffler was missing. He saw prisoner about the place the previous night. James Rae, pawnbroker, deposed that prisoner pawned the topcoat produced on the previous day. Witness gave it up to Constable Strathern. This morning another man came to pledge another coat, which he said belonged to hia uucle the prisoner. Witness detained bim and brought him to the police station. Prisoner was afterwards arrested and identified by witness. Prisoner said he could not understand it. It was a mysterious affair. He came over from England two months ago. He had plenty of clothes. He belonged to a good family, and had never done a dishonest action before in his life. His father was an officer in the army, and he came out to New Zealand to settle down. His things were still at the hotel. His Worship said tho offence waa a very serious one, and entailed a serious punishment. Prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. His Worship made an order that the coat should be restored to tho owner upon his paying Mr. Kae lis, the amount which he had a Ivanced on it.

By-Laws and Regulations. — Joseph Hoskins, for obstructing the carriage-way in Cußtomhouse-street, by leaving his horse and cart across the street, was fined Is, and 7s costs; John Golding, for a similar offence in Fort-street, was also fined Is, and 7s costs; Thomas Beach, for driving

at other than a walking pace ronnd the corner of Victoria and Qaeen-streets, vraj fined. 2s, and 7s costs.—-Ellen McClonghlan for not maintaining a light over the front entrance of the Oharlemont Hotel, Wake-field-street, was fined 2g, and 7s costs Thomas Constable, for not maintaining a light on a Bcaffolding in Hob3on-Bfcreet, wag fined 23, and 7s costs. —Richard Hoare, for allowing the chimney of his honse in Cookstreet, to take fire, was fined 2i, and 7s costs