RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XIII, Issue 750, 14 January 1860, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

Monday, January 2nd, 1860.

Some charges of drunkenness brought by the Police, against persons whom the holiday times had deprived of the power to take care of themselves, were heard to day and lightly dealt with. Several actions for the recovery of small debts also occupied the time of the Court; Many of them were undefended, and several were settled out of Court. The remainder presented no feature of interest.

Friday, January 6,

William Johnson, a private of marines on board H.M.S. Iris, was brought up on a charge of using abusive language and provoking a breach of the peace. . A second charge was brought against him for being drunk. The latter wa> proved and a fine of 10s. imposed, but the' former offence was to a certain extent involved in the latter, and in its worst features was not sufficiently proved to warrant the Court in using severe measures. An excellent character was given to Johnson by a non-com-missioned officer of marines.

Saturday, January 7th.

Thomas Barton and John Sims, both of whom had been brought itp and fined for drunkenness previously during the week, appeared again to answer a similar charge. The accusation was proved in each case, and the extreme penalty allowed by law, 40s. was • inflicted, or in default imprisonment for 96 hours. Monday, January 9th. (Before Johji rHall, Bsq;, R.M.) EEGHNA V. ■WIIiiIAM/'DAY.—-PEHJUEY.

The prisoner was brought Up on the charge of committing wilful perjury in a case heard in the Resident Magistrate's. Court .^t Lyttelton, on the 12th December last, when the prisoner defended an action for debt brought against him by J. H. Caton—and denied upon oath that any meat, said to have been supplied to him by the plaintiff in that action, had been; so supplied after a certain date. The facts of the'prisoner having been sworn and having given the evidence as alleged in his own behalf were deposed to by the corporal of police and two of the justices who heard the case, who also deposed that the evidence so given was material to the case and was likely to influence the decision of the Court. . . • The plaintiff in the former case, John Henry Caton, swore to the fact of the meat, the subject of the charge, having been supplied. Witness had.no means of knowing whether the accused was cognizant of the meat being supplied. Frederick Newnham, who had been in the employ of last witness deposed to having received orders and carried out meat to the accused s house. He generally saw Day's wife, but sometimes Day himself. This was in November and December 1857; the date named by the accused in his sworn denial of having received any meat, was the 23rd of October, in that year. John Townsend Parkinson, who had been in business as a butcher* deposed that on the sth Dec. 1857; he had opened an account for meat with the accused, arid had supplied him after that time until he left the business. , The accused, on being asked in the usual form, declined to make any statement, and was committed for trial at the ensuing session of the Supreme Court, Caton being bound over to prosecute.

THACKEB V. CAMEBON,

Damages £20, for breach of contract. The plaintiff summoned the : defendant in this case for loss, sustained upon a lot of about 7000 feet of timber sawn by him to defendant's order in the end of 1858. The order was given in June, 1858, and completed in about two or three months. "Defendant did not send for the timber, and in December plaintiff sent in the account and drew on defendant for the amount; the drafts were dishonoured. Plaintiff then gave notice that he would sell the timber and charge defendant with the loss; and accordingly he had the timber sold by Mr. Barnard. Defendant told him he did not want the timber.

:^ Defendant stated upon' oath, that when he had intimation that the timber was ready he went down with a boat to fetch it; but there was none to be had. He then gave a fresh order but never afterwards received notice from plaintiff that the timber was ready. He had to buy other timber for want of this order being executed. William Clifford, master of the schooner Gipsey, said that in December, 1858, he took a message from^ defendant to plaintiff requesting him to get the timber quickly, as'it was wanted. He promised to do so. About three or four months afterwards witness saw the timber lying about a, mile and a half from the shipping place, at the bridge, where vessels rarely go to load. Plaintiff, being re-examined, said that he believed tho timber was delivered when it was at the bridge. It was taken down there in December, 1858, or January, 1859. It lay there for about two months and was then removed to tho Deep-hole, where it lay about two months longer. Judgement was given for plaintiff for £11 2s. 9d. and costs 15s.