THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 4952, 16 January 1879, Page 2

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Oommoh Jury.) Macdonald v. Proctor.— Claim, lA,OCO, damages for the refusal by the defendant to carry out an agreement for the leasing of a coalpit at Papakaio; special damages were also claimed. Mr Denniston appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Haggitt, with him Mr Hislop, for the defence. This case was commenced yesterday, and was not concluded when we went to press to-day. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Renton v. Smith.—Claim, L 7, value of a kitchen range removed by defendant from plaintiff’s premises.—ln this case his Worship de--1 v aed judgment for plaintiff for L 4, with costs, Thomas M'Gill v. 1 lavid Richardi-on.—Claim, LlB 7s 9d, on a judgment summons. Mr Stewart appeared for plaintiff and stated that defendant had agreed to pay LI 5s per month.— Order granted; in default seven days’ imprisonment. Pell v. Frederick Price.—Claim, L 3 13s, on a judgment summons, Mr Howorth appeared for plaintiff —Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for immediate payment; in default ten days’ imprisonment. Henry Benjamin v.. Thomas Kitchener.— Claim, Ll2 18s 6d, on a judgment summons.— Defendant agreed to an order for 15t per month; in defoult ten days’ imprisonment. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs by defaultO. C. Armstrong v. Peter Sprightly, claim LI 17s 6d, for board and lodging; fl. W. Smythiep. v. John Felgar, L 3 7s, for coal; same v. Susan Reid, L2 10s 6d; H. S. Fish, junr., v. John Iveson, Ll6 9s, for goods supplied ; F. W. Eggefs v. James Campbell, L 4 8s sd. v Robert Gawn y. Robert Donaldson.—Claim, Ll4 13s, for stabling and for the storage of a waggon for twelve months. Mr Kettle appeared for plaintiff ; Mr E. C. Strode for defendantjudgment was given for plaintiff for L 3 2s 2d, with costs.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J. Logan, Esq., and J. Brown, Esq., J.P’s.) Drunkenness.— Wm. Roach was fined ss, in default, twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; James M'Lean, 10s, or forty-eight hours; Alfred Clay, not answering to his bail, 20s, or three days. Patrick Byrne, who said that the charge had been ‘‘ trumped up,” and necessitated two police officers being summoned out ot their beds at North Dunedin, was fined 20s, with the alternative of two days’ imprisonment. False Pretences and Theft. John Honeroft, a lame man, was charged with stealing on January 10 a nugget of brass of the value of 6d, the property of John Hand, of Kensington. There was a second charge against him of unlawfully and knowingly, by a certain false pretence, obtaining from one Robert Henry Bailey the sum of L 3 in money, with intent to defraud him of the same.—lnspector Mallard explained that this case was a little out of the ordinary run of false pretences The accused had really committed two offences—he had stolen a .nugget of brass, and then wont and sold it: to Mr Bailey, representing that it was gold. Under'the Larceny Act of 1874 the case could be dealt with summarily.—John Hand stated that the nugget produced had been given to him by a mate who told him that it was pure brass.— Kate M'Donald, an abandoned character, stated that she occupied part of the last witness’s bouse. On Sunday the accused was at her place, and snatched the specimen produced from her hand. She said that it did not belong to her, and that it was no good. He repliedthat be would take it and try and make a rise of it. vHe knew that it was no good. He then walked-off.—Richard Henry Bailey, watchmaker, deposed that accused went to his shop yesterday and asked witness to weigh the nugget produced. He did so, and accused asked him if it was gold. He replied that it was, and then purchased it, giving a cheque for L 3 for it. The nugget was a beautiful deception—very few judges would think of testing it. On each offence prisoner was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. Family Differences. Maria Fairbank charged Henry Fairbank with assaulting her. Complainant, who has frequently appeared before the Court to prosecute her husband on charges of assault and maintenance, deposed that she came out of the Lunatic Asylum on the 17th December last. She sent for the husband at night, and he nvaulted her, saying that he would either kill her or put her back in the Lunatic Asylum as her place bad been filled in the family circle for some time. She bad to sleep in the fowlbouse that night.— Defendant, on being put into the witness-box, said that on the day his wife came out of the Asylum she took a summons out against him for maintenance, and the case came on on the IBth ult. He did not see her • till he saw her in court, so tho woman’s evidence was pure imagination. She was not right-in. her mind.—As there was oath against oath the case was dismissed. The Boston ‘.Post’ thinks thb.prodigal son must have had a husky voice when he got home. True but then it will., be remembered that he immediately acknowledged the corn.