SOUTHBRIDGE.

Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4264, 29 March 1879, Page 2

SOUTHBRIDGE.

Tttzbdat, Mabch 25. fßefor* E. J. Lee, W. J. G. Blnett, and A. B. Willie, Bsqs., J.P.V| MiBCELLAyrEOV3.-~Je.mee Maxwell- was charged by the police with being illegally on the premises of James Huston. The rase was dismissed. James Maxwell, charged with assaulting James Huston and another, was fined £1 and costs. B. S. Jeffrey was charged with assaulting James Huston. The case was dismissed. The same defendant was also charged by the same plaintiff with proToking a breach of the peace. This case was I also dismissed. Mrs Dawson, charged by James Huston with using intuiting language, was discharged. ' * : **'.. Crra Casks.— J. O. Moore tA. Smith, claim £12 Iβ 7d; judgment by default. F. Deßidder v H. Pearson, claim £2 4s sd; judgment by default. J. Hayes t H. Pear» son, claim 14a; judgment by default. 0. Patterson t J. Graham, claim £5 18s 9d| judgment by default: : '. ASHBFBTON. [Before A- Le3rand Campbell, Esq., B.M.] Ajbßa,ox/x.—Thomas Quill was charged with assaulting Thomas B. Waterlow on March Bth. Mr Orisp appeared for oomplainant and Mr Branson for defendant. From etidehce , giTen by complainant it appeared that accused had assaulted Waterlow when he went to fetch some letters. Oomplainant had formerly been in Mr Quill's employ and. had left after a quarrel. On the day in question he returned to get some letters from Martha Techinski, who was a serrant in Mr Quill's employ. Mr Quill fonnd him talfting at the back staircase, and took him by the back and put Mm out. For the defence, Mr Branson stated that Mr Quill ordered complainant out of the premises when he found him standing by the back stair, which was a prirate part of the house where a stranger had bo basineis. As he dScfnot go Mr Quill poshed him oat. This *wae on the.serrants' premises. Accused gave eridence in snpport of Mr Branson's statement. The case was dismissed with costs.

Crvn. Cases.—Beswick v Acland, Campbell and Co.; withdrawn on payment of costs. Lee v Boswell, claim £31 4s for labor and goods supplied, Mr Harris for plaintiff; judgment for plaintiff by default. Walsh v Daley, claim £22 15s, Messrs Branson and Purnell for plaintiff; judgment by default with costs. A. O. Aitkin and Co. v CharJw Smithel, Mr Harris for plaintiff, claim for £30 5s 2d for unpaid promiuoiy note; judgment for plaintiff by default with costs. Edwards and Lee vDennis Betts, claim £11 Is; judgment by defarlt with costs, defendant not appearing. Bullock and Co. v Charles Smithel, claim £34 5s 7d { judgment for plaintiffs by default. John Bell v John Devery, claim £10, Messrs Branson and Pinwell for plaintiff. The summons was enlarged for a fortnight, ss it had been improperly served. Jameson Bros, vC. Smithel, claim £43 7. 6d; judgment by default with cost* for pla—tiff. Acland, Campbell and Co. v Compton, Mr Ireland applied for an adjournment on .behalf of plaintiffs; Mr Crisp, defendant's counsel, objected unless costs were paid ; adjourned on payment of costs. Digby v Taylor, claim £5 6s, Messrs Branson and Purnell for plaintiff; judgment for plaintiff with costs Doherty vO. Smithel, chum £12 I. Ild; judgment by default lor _nox_t o_i_cd and costs. Saunders Bros, v B. Paton, claim £78 10. 2d, Mr Harris for plaintiff ; judgment by default for plaintiff, with costs. Lee v Acland, Campbell; adjourned for a week. Bruce v Bradford, Messrs Branson and Purnell for plaintiff, claim £82 2s 6d, for preparing plans and specifications for hotel; judgment for £79 and costs for plaintiff. R. Davis v McCutcheon, claim £2 8s for goods supplied, Messrs Branson and Purnell for plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for defendant; judgment for plaintiff for £2 3s and costs. Dunn v Caldwell, Mr Ireland made an application for costs as the plaintiff had not appeared ; granted.