RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. This Day. (Before Mr. T. A. Mansford, R.M.)

Evening Post, Volume XVI, Issue 211, 5 September 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. This Day. (Before Mr. T. A. Mansford, R.M.)

THE AMATEUR POLTCBI^AAT. Thomas Oakley, a new arrival, was charged with being drunk and assaulting Andrew Waters, one of the wharf employe's. Defendant said tbat he had not had anything to drink during the three months, the voyage had occupied, and he supposed the colonial beer had overcome him. Sergeant Smith said 'that the defendant was the would-be policeman, and endeavored to arrest the complainant Waters. As the latter did not appear to prefer the charge of assault, his Worship simply fined the defendant Hi for the drunkenness. AN INEBRIATE.. W. H. Hume, charged with being drunk and incapable, was aned 10s and costs, or 24 hours' imprisonment. THE EPFBCTB OP DRINK. John Livingston was charged on a warrant, on the information of bis wife, with lunacy. Sergeant Smith observed that the defendant was armed with a pistol, and his wife had to get assistance in order to disarm him. The Magistrate said this appeared to he s case of mental derangement through drink, and he should not put the county to the expense of having the defendant examined by a medical mad. He' should remand him for seven days, when probably he woufd be examined by the gaol doctor. CIVIL CASES. The following judgment summonses wero heard :— J. Reid v. H. T. Doveton, £5 15s 6d, order to pay on or befo.o 3rd October, or four weeks' imprisonment ; Webber Bros. v. Ward and Page, £8 3s 4d, order to pay 30s a month, or six weeks' imprisonment ; Williams, Cameron & Co. v. W. Wilbrant, £20 lls Cd, order to pay on or before 13th inst., or three weeks' imprisonment. Judgment for the plaintiffs wii3 given in the following rases :'-' J.' Smith v. R.-Davies, £19 6s 3d : J. Perry v." Thomas Frost, £12; E. W. Mills v/ T. Evansf £12 16s 6-J ; Waddell, M'Leod, and Weir' v. W. B.Campin, £01353 d; J. Riddlerv. J. Hudson, £44 11s 6d ; H. Bennett v. D'Elmame, £3 16* ; R. Barber v. W. H. Parnoll, £1 los Ofi ; same v. D. Pyne, £2 18s sd ; same v. A. Stott, £3 5^ lOd ;• same v>T. Friend, 19s Od. ' -¦ THE ALLEGED JPORGBRY, The charge of forgery against Alfred Henry M'Lean was further proceeded i\ith this afternoon. ' - ' Prosecutor was further cross-examined at sorno length by Mr. Ollivfer. He stated that he had an advertisement in the newspapers with reference to his transactions with M'Lean, in which he stated that the latter was no longer in his employ, and that he (witne*) had nevtr parted with his interest in the business in Cuba-street. He did ntake an arrangement with Cheesemdn, Lambert, and his (witne*. 's) con fof the sale of the business, but tliat arraugement was not completed. McLean was not to have any share with them. -Witness allowed them to work the business under this arrangement front December, 1877, when it was made, till the- end of March or April.- He did not pay them out until May. He gave Checseman £38. Cheeseman put no money into the business, but Lambert contributed £400. Witness arraDged to put in £300 on behalf of hit,

»on, who was a minor. They were to carry on the business under the style of Nicholson and Co. M'Lean wns managing— keeping the books and drawing cheques (with Cheeseman s initials) for the firm. The terms between witness and the firm were that the latter wrae to take over the whole of the stock for £2400 o-id, to take a lease of the premises, and to pay witness £.3 a week. The arrangement was put an end to in April or May, because the firm did not carry out their engagement to him. Witness put M'Lean in to look after his (witness's) interest in ihe business. The case was proceeding when we went to press. "