RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1083, 17 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, January 16.1 '-. \ (Before W. H. Revell, Esq.^ &M.) Drunk and Disorderly. — Peter Edwards and Henry Lavender were charged with the above offence, and as they were, only Biinply drunk, they were discharged with, a caution. s . Abusive Language.;— -James Montgomery was charged with_u§}pg^abusive language to "John Wjright, on the 13th instant, at the Teremakau. It appeared that the plaintiff served a, notice ..on defendant in connection with, some mining dispute, and the languago complained of occurred in connection therewith; ; The plaintiff stated that the defendant had offered . to "settle the matter," but the only difference was a question of terms, which was not denied^ The defendant was fined 10a and costs. CIVIL CASES. • ' Reid v. Vivian.— -A summons for LI 15s, for advertising in the Evening Star. Defendant not appearing, judgment went by default. Guinness v. Allan. — A claim for L 9 153, balance of a disputed partnership account. It appeared that both parties were partners in a mining transaction, and the claim arose out of the windirig-up. After hearing evidence, judgment was given for L 8 19s and coats. M 'Sherry v. Haunay. — An action to recover 14 for work and labor. Plaintiff stated that he was engaged by Mr Hannay as cook for a fortnight at L 2 per week. On Saturday, the 24th ult, defendant came into the kitchen and "called him names," and told him that he had no right to create a nuisance in front of his house, and that he would not pay him. The next morning Mrs Hannay called him to go to work, but he had made up his mind not to stop, and although Mrs Hannay entreated him not to leave, he went to Mr Carroll's. He had " wrought four days for Mr Hannay." In crossexamination, plaintiff stated that he was en£a?ed as cook andjto clean up. ;He emptied rubbish outside .the frontdoor, which he did not remove. Mrs Hannay requested him not to leave. He was not engaged at Carroll's prior to . leaving Hannay's. Mrs and Mrs Hannay were both examined, from which it appeared that the plaintiff emptied rubbish in. front of the house in direct opposition to the wishes of Hannay. The man was not requested to leave, but on the contrary, was asked to fulfil his engagement. Without troubling Mr Guinness for a reply his Worship dismissed the case with costs. Peak ,v. Perrin.— Claim for LI 10s, damage alleged to have been done by defendant's pigs and goals. The case was pretty fully proved, but! then it was alleged by Mr Perkins that the garden was not fenced according to the provisions laid down in the Canterbury Ordinance, nor did Grey mouth come within the strict meaning of that ordinance. There was also a doubt as to the ownership of the pigs, and the defendant urged that the pigs belonged to Mr Wallace Woolfe, and the goats to some other person. The fence was a rotten one, which statement was corroborated by one Antonio Stickawitch. Hia Worship, in summing tip, pointed out the. inconsistencies of such an Act as the Canterbury Ordinance applying to Greymouth, but stated that he had no power to order more than so much per head being levied. He would therefore give judgment for 3s 6d and costs, but he. pointed out that plaintiff could take proceedings under another Act, for allowing cattle to ; stray. Maynr and Councillors of the Borough of Greymouth v. Elizabeth Revell.— This was an action to recover L 2 10s, for rates due on an house in Albert street. It appeared that the defendant sold the house shortly after the rate was struck, and she did not consider that she ought to pay more than a proportion of the amount due. She also urged that her agent, Mr Coates, had paid in excess. MrWhall, the Town Clerk, proved that the amount alleged to have been paid in excess was in reality for rates really due, and as the Municipal Corporations' Act laid down the rule upon which a rate should be struck, judgmeut was given for the amount claimed, with costs. Same v. Keown.— A claim for L 2 5s for rates due. Defendant disputed his liability, as he was the holder of a business license under the Gold Fields Act, and therefore could not be within #JP town boundary. Mr Perkins . contended that defendant wa3 liable, and quoted the proclamation relative to the town boundaries in support of his argument. Mr Keown asked, if such was the case, whether he was compelled to pay a business license. His Worship believed he was, but recommended him to petition the Council on the matter ; as it was, there was no alternative but to give i judgment for the amount claimed, "with costs. .'■■■• Hill and Hampton v. Coleman and Hihes. — -An action for trespass to recover Is 6d. Mr Perk>s for plaintiffs, aj}d Mr Newton for defendants. The trespass to a certain extent was not denied, but the question arose whether a lease under the Gold Fields Act overrode a depasturing license granted by the Waste Lands Board. The : defendants had obtained permission from certain miners to depasture cattle over land held by them in virtue of a lease held tinder the Gold Fields Regulations, A right to pasturage had- also been granted ; by the Waste Land 3 Board qver the same ground. Mr Jerkins contested that the mining lease did not extend to the whole of the surface ground^ while Mr. Newton urged that the lease was a bona fide one to all intents and purposes, and thst it -ran the same as an ordinary lease ; and furthermore, that a lease direct from the Queen overrode a lease from the Waste Lands Board, provided that the lease was a prior one. His Worship was of a similar opinion, and on the application of Mr Newton for an adjournment to prove the date of the mining lease, the case was adjourned till Thursday. ' Loughrey v. Miss Rowan and Matthew Feehan,-— An action for L'so, for wrongful conversion of a billiard table. Plaintiff is a publican at German Gully, and bought a billiard table of a man named War maid, who had since taken a trip to Victoria, for the benefit of his health after turning insolvent. The billiard table was sold, subject to a lien held by Miss Rowan, for the sum of L2O being satisfied. The table was sold by a man named Arthur Smith, who held a rather doubtful interlined letter of attorney from Warmald, and was taken possession of by Loughrey. The table was afterwards removed by Feehan, as agent lor Miss Rowan, and it was to

recover possession that the presentation was brought. The bill of sale froJ^tlisß Rowan to Warmald was produced, which Smith stated that he was prepared to liquidate when it became due. Miss Rowan had parted with the table to Warmald for L3O, and had received LlO on account. His Worship ordered-the table "to be given up to plaintiff, or, in default, a verdict: to- be entered, f or ttie amount claimed. • Venables y. Thatcher.— Summons for Lll 13s 6d, for goods detained . Evidence having been takeni ' judgment was given for L 2 and costs. ... . ..,; ,,,,