RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3122, 19 July 1867, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tmrasiu?. [Before T, BioKhah, Esq., B.M.] , JUDGMENTS. STKADMAN V. WINK. His Worship laid that in this case judgment must pass for the plaintiff.

MCCAUL V. KESBITT. His Worship said that the Court, after giving mature consideration to the evidence, did not think there was anything to disturb the original judgment.

C01LB V. ALLWOOD. His Worship said that the evidence did not disclose any privity between the plaintiff and the defendant, so that the judgment must either be for the defendant, or plaintiff must take a nonsuit. Mr. MacCormick, for the plaintiff, elected to take • nonsuit.

QUICK V. MCMANUS. His Worship said that in this case there was clearly not only negligence, bub rery great recklessness. One of the witnesses described his having cleaned out the horse's knee, which was cut to the tendon j yet the journey was prosecuted with an utter disregard of the proper treatment of the horse. Judgment muit pass for the plaintiff for £10.

JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFFS. J. Graham v. J. Wilson, £4 4s. ; Cunningham y. Allison, £2; S. Alpe v. D. Stewart, £16 7s. 6d. j Connor and flarney v. J. Lundon, £3 7s. 6d. ; M. Carroll v. J. Foley, £14 16*. ; Boucher v. D. Smith, 11s. 3£d. ; Hall r. Leitcb, £16 17s. ; A. Cunning, hamv. J. Br»y, £2 7s. 6d.

CUNNINGHAH V. MUIXALY. Mr. Bereridge for plaintiff; Mr. Macdonald for defendant. Claim, £6, for use and occupation. PJaintiff took a nonsuit on a technical point.

I. ADAMS V. 0, GBEENWAY. Mr. "Wynn for plaintiff. Claim, £5, for rates paid. Plaintiff deposed tbat he had paid a rate of £5 to the City Board in respect of the Queen's Head Hotel, of which he was a tenant under Mr. Greenway at £3 10s. a week. Henry Adams, plaintiff's brother, deposed that, whan Mr. Greenway took possession as the mortgagee, he said that he would pay the rates. The defence was that defendant was not in possession till after the period for which the taxes were incurred. Judgment for plaintiff.

HA.YNES V. E. JOHNSOX. Mr. Macdonald for defendant. Claim, £10 12s. lid. ; the case was adjourned, owing to the non-production of plaintiff's booki.

SAVOBY V. PELL. Claim, 15s., for good* supplied. Adjourned, T. TORGHAM V. OASBT. | Mr. Macdonald for the plaintiff; Mr. J. B. Russell for defendant Claim, £i 8s., for damages for the non-deliverance of five bags of maize. Plaintiff deposed that he sent op five bags of maize to his place at Lucas's Creek, and to' land them there, at a charge of 4s. 6d. The value of the maiae was £4 8s. The captain promised to land them Mfely. Joseph Johnson, farm labourer with Mr. Forgham. deposed that he came down and called oat to those in the steamer that he had no boat to send for the maize. The steamer then went on. A witness was called, who deposed that the oorn was put into a dingy on the downward voyage, which capsized from the careless way in which the oorn was put into it. The defence was to the effect that the accident was occasioned principally through the carelessness of the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount. PHILLIPS V. CLARKE. Claim, £2 9a. Mr. Macdonald for plaintiff. This was a claim made for detention of punt, at the rate of Is. a day. The defence was, that the punt had never been hired at ail, but that the use of it had been offered to defendant by the plaintiff himself. ,, Judgment for plaintiff for Is.

KEMBLE AND SIMEONS V. STEELS. Claim, £2, for goods delivered. The defence was, that the goods were supplied to defendant's wife, and her husband had advertised that lie would not be responsible for his wife's debts. The plaintiff stated that the defendant was living with his wife at the time the meat was supplied, and partook thereof. Judgment for plaintiff.

HACAIR Y. J. FRANCIS. Claim, £2, for damage sustained by defendant's goats. Defendant agreed to pay 5s. a week to the extent of 30a. DIOKSON Y. DEANfiS. Claim, 83. 8d. No appearance of defendant. A fresh summons to be issued. Thu concluded the business.

Was and Peace.— The simplest standard of judging of the justice of the power of making war and peace, is to ask, is the proclamation of war or the treaty of peace so entirely founded on truth, «o perfectly correspondent to the righteous and judicial character of God, that man need not fear to lay them before the Judge of the whole world for his ratification ? If such be the case, moil; assuredly "then they are right, whatever be their consequences, or whatever be the judgment men may pass upon them. But otherwiie, if the manifesto of war contain nothing but shallow and specious pretexts, painfully raked together, or of fine colourable phrases, which even the eye of the world can see through, if a light touch of truth be only thrown over it, in the hope of concealing the conqueror's lnst of aggrandisement, or the equally destructive principle of an old national feud or jealousy ; if in the pacification, under ambiguous terms and/ 'cunningly-devised phrases, the seeds of a future war be carefully sown, and thus the worst disease of the political world be propagated from generation to generation, then most assuredly the eye of Eternal Justice has not watched over its completion, but another and a very different coadjutor has bad his hand in the game — the spirit of untruth and of corruption, of strife and of ruin, whom no name so exactly describes as that of a "liar from the beginning."— TfoPhilotcphyofldfe. ' •'..->