RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Charleston Argus, Volume 1, Issue 17, 11 May 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, May 10, 1867. (Before Charles Broad, Esq., R.M.)

Wilful and Corrupt Perjury. —Francis Carroll, charged on remand with th s iffer.ce, was further remanded to the 17th, hi-; Worship being a wit:ie>< in the ea>e and consequently incompetent t > lie.tr it. Mr lie;-; a;>|);*;ired for the accused, and repioste t the court to re I,tee the sureties for •he prisoner's appearance to £25, which his Wor>hip inim ;diatelv assented to. Larceny.—Julia Kennedy, was charged .vith having on the Bth inst. entered the premises of Thomas Corbett, draper, Coal street, and stealing from the sime two silk scarfs, of the valu-of 12s. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Kees, for the defence. George Fergu>on, shopman to Mr Corbett, sworn, stated the prisoner came into the store on Wednesday evening, and purchased a net, wh'cli she did not pay for, he turned his back for a few second-;, and looking round saw the scar.'s produced under prisoner's cloak. She inquired for a pair of boats, and a crinoline on credit, which witness refused her. The prisoner left the shop, when witness called her back and demanded the scarfs, which she at first denied having, but ultimately gave up. then called iti a constable and gave the prisoner it custody. 11/ Mr Uec>: He considered the prisoner was the worsv 1 for liquor Several witnesses were called, who gave the prison r a good character. His worship, who took a lenient view of the case, inflicted the light S2titence of three days' imprisonment.

Larceny - -John Alexander Murray was charged with steiling a quantity of gold from one Alfre 1 Jolly, a miner, on the 9th inst. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Detcct'vc Lambert applied for a remand to obtain certain witnesses a'i 1 wash the gold. The prisoner was remanded till Friday next, the 17th inst.

Assault. —Emilia Mounce v. Joseph Barnett, alias Bernard Mouchakati. From the evidence of the complainant, who keeps the Emerald Isle Hotel, it appeared that the defendant came to the front door of her public house about half-past eight on Sunday night last, and demanded admittance, which she refused him ; he then gained admission at the back, and on her refusing him further access he knocked her down and kicked her about the ribs. A witness named Mrs Flinn stated that the defendant came to the back door of the Emerald -JnWflot«l-on Sunday-evening. Asked fo a drink, which witness served him, at the same time enquiring for a girl named Lizzie, and endeavored to force his way into the bedroom, the complainant I interfered, when he knocked her down and ki jke 1 her. The defendant stated that he was parsing the honse when the complainant called him in, hj;» shouted four | drinks, and was going away, when the comphvmnt r j p*»at-3lly siappelhim about ithefae\ asking him to shout again, and | told him not to b: mea i. Fine 1 20s and ! CO 4s.

Assault.—Mouchakati v. Reid. Adjourned to the 17th inst, tho summons not having bem served.

Assault.- -Gilles u'e v. TI ivdon. The complainant in this case stated the circumstance* of the ea<e, which was not a serious or aggravate 1 one. and requested the permission of the Co'M to withdraw the charge, whi.-h was allowed. Information dismissed.

CIVIL CASKS

O'Neill and Gothard v. Ilaydon and Bracken.-Settled out <>f Court. Same v. Varlev.—Claim for £2) 18s 10d, re Inced to £2O to bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. The particulars of demand in this wore six sh »e;), delivered to the defendant by a Mr Fox, and subsequently sold to the plaintiffs, and 188 lbs. of beef, supplied by the latter. The defendant, who pleaded not indebted, urged that the money for the sheep was only due to Fox, who. he admitted, had never made any demand for the money. Kvidence was produced to prove the bad and unsaleable condition of the beef After a thorough hearing of the case judgment went for the plaintiffs in the amount claimed, together with costs. Allen Bros. v. Orbell.— No appearance. Case dismissed. Kent v. Linahan.- -Claim for .£1 55., being costs awarded the plaintiff in the Warden's court. The plaintiff was nonsuited, ?md advised to apply to the Warden. Cullen v. Robinson.-- No appearance. Case dismissed. Turner v. Bourker.—No appearance. Case dismissed.

Driscoll v. Kofahl.-Claim for£3 10s 4d. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Daley v. Walker.—Claim for £2O, for breach of contract and damage by cutting away portion of dwelling-house. Mr Bees for the pbiintiff, set forth the particulars of damage, which consisted in the breach of r\ n^^eem o'!* 0 '!*- n which the defendant, in <v';is.M-rati",, or the sun u £UI w.uicr-

t K)k not to interfere in any way with the plaintiffs building. The defendant's workman liai since cut down the plaintiff'a barge board to admit of the building being brought close up to plaintiff* home. -I. ',}., Walker, of the Camp Intel, sworn, stated that ha originally pur-h-is.'! 21 feet ••'.' ground from Daley for the sum of K() I He wear down to lioVnika, ami onkwu .; building to b; put to,' ther 21 »y •"> ( ; " its arrivil he found he could not p.vw.bi; jam it into thy vacancy b'.w..j!i IKhiyN house and hi-s next do->r ncurtVur He applied to Ml- i)l/y, wio the carpenter to cut the angle off the barge board in front of his cottage. Daley subsequently agreed to p.iy him £lO compensation for the seven inches he was short of 21 feet frontage, and for the cost and delay, in cutting down the frame of his lij:h*\ The damage, if any, Daley had subline] consisted in an inch aid a half having been cut off his barge board, and the carpc-n er had proved that an entirely new bmrd could be furbished for .£l, and it was'by Dalev's orders it ha 1 been cut, an 1 he had not since counter-mandod the orler. By the Court. There was no agreement ns ti any right-of-way. Judgment for the defendant.

Button v. Jones.—Mr Rees for the plaintiff, who h.ivi,ig failel to appear, the case was (lis n ; s"» K Bla:ic!iard and Dutton v. Jones —Mr Rees fur the plaintiffs. The defendant applied for an adjournment in this case, having only been served with the summons two or three hours-previous. Mr Rjes objected on the ground tint the defen Lint was about to leave the district. In reply to his Worship, the defendant deniel a:iy intention of leaving, and the case was set down for hearing on Friday next, the 17th inst.

O'Neill and Walker v, Macarthy.-This was a claim for £4, brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant, for forming a bridge over a drain, and finding material. The bridge was twenty-five feet wide, and the centre was slabbed and gravelled. The contract price was £4. Mr Macarthy stated that his only objection to pay wa* on account of the centre only being slabbe 1 for four feet, in place of six feet, as agreed. The work was substantial, indeed better than he wanted, and he considered the price moderate, but wanted the work completing. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount claime 1 together with costs.

M'Carthy v. Kofahl.—Mr Rees for plaintiff, in the absence of both parties m to the action, applied for an adjourn ment. The ca<ewasset down for hearing on Friday next.

The Court then adjourne I till Friday, the 17th inst., at 11 a.m.