RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1229, 30 April 1864, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

CHRlSTCHUltCH.—Thursday, April 28. (Before C. 11. Blakiston and A. Back, Esqrs., J.P.'s j Unlawful Presence in a Dwelling-House.— Joseph Brilliard was charged with this offence; Charles Massey, the scene-painter at the Princess* Theatre, deposed that he resided in Gloucester street. He retired to rest about 12 25 on the pre-* vious night, and shortly after, hearing a noise, he went into the kitchen, where he found the prisoner, whom he took to the police-station. On his way thither he denied that he had been inside the house. Witness had locked the door, but the fastening was not very secure, and the door could be easily opened by any one pushing against it. He missed nothing from the premises; he did not think that the prisoner had time to remove anything. The prisoner was not apparently under the influence of liquor. On being asked if he wished to make any statement, the prisoner said that being under the influence of drink, lie was looking for some place where he could lodge. The presiding magistrate decided that as the prisoner did not appear to have been actuated by any felonious intention, he might be discharged on giving his promise not to offend again in a similar manner. He was warned against the evil consequences of indulging in habits of intemperance. The prisoner tendered an apology to Mr. Massey for the annoyance he had occasioned him, and the latter having expressed himself satisfied, the matter terminated.

Assault. —Martin McGovern was charged with having committed a violent assault in January last. It may be recollected that on the occasion of the last Canterbury races, held in that month, Thomas Singlehurst and John Coe were violently assaulted. Some of the persons concerned in the outrage, were convicted at the last session of the Supreme Court, and are now undergoing imprisonment, with hard labor, in Lytlelton gaol. The prisoner, who took part in the affray, was this flay brought up, on remand, to answer for his share in the transaction. There had been a warrant issued for his apprehension, aud he had recently voluntarily surrendered himself. The prisoner confessed his guilt. Mr. C. P. Soulsby, who stated that he had known him both in England and in Canterbury, gave him an excellent character for honesty and sobriety. The prisoner was sentenced to be imprisoned for two months.

Using Threatening Language.—George Cattrick was charged with using violent and threatening language towards his wife. Mr. Hanmer appeared for the defendant. The complainant swore that she considered that her life was in danger from the violence of the accused. On one occasion he threatened to knock her down with a water-can; on another, he had taken a box of matches, and declared that he would set fire to the house, and burn all the inmates. Burton Shipley was called, and gave some evidence confirmatory of the statement made by the wife of the defendant. He swore that the latter had taken up a knife, and vowed that he would be the death of his wife, if he were to be hanged the following day. His language throughout the transaction was of the most violent and improper character. It appeared that the prisoner was bound over on a former occasion in his own recognizance of £50, and one surety in £25, to keep the peace towards his wife. The Court was cleared, and on its re-opening, the Bench ruled that these recognizances should be estreated. The prisoner stated that he had no money to pay the amount, and pleaded that his wife had been in the habit of obtaining spirits without his knowledge. The Bench remarked that they could not over-rule their decision.

LYTTELTON.—Tuesday, April 26. (Before Wm. Donald, Esq., R.M.) This morning the Court sat to decide several civil cases. The following is one of considerable interest to the mercantile community. Louisson v. Nalder.—Claim of £19 10s lOd for freight and charges on four cases, ex Mermaid. Mr. D'Oyly appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotterill for the defendant. Mr. D'Oyly, on behalf of Mr. Louisson, stated that his client was appointed by the agents of the ship Mermaid to clear up the manifest, and among other goods passed for, were the four cases delivered to Mr. Nalder, the consignee. The agents of the ship, on her arrival, caused an advertisement to appear in the newspapers, giving notice to the consignees to clear their goods and pass entries at the customs by a certain date, in default the goods would be landed at consignees risk and expense, as per conditions of bills of lading. Mr. Nalder had neglected to do so in this instance, and Mr. Louisson, a licensed Custom-house agent, was authorised to clear up the manifest, according to the usual custom of the Port. The defendant's solicitor said they did not dispute the local charges, but objected to pay the demand for freight. He stated that Mr. Nalder held a receipt in full of all demands for 53 packages, belonging to him, signed on behalf of Messrs. Shaw, Saville and Co., for freight, paid in England. The defendant and his family arrived in Canterbury by the Tiptree. On the ship leaving Plymouth, it was found that only 49 packages had been put on board that vessel. That Mr. Shaw had in the presence of witnesses stated that the four cases short shipped should be fowarded by the first vessel free of cost to defendant. The said cases arrived in the Mermaid, and were duly received by Mr. Nalder in Christchurch On the arrival of the ship the defendant gave instructions to Mr. Genet to forward him the cases and pass the entries. Therefore they did not recognise the services of the plaintiff Jn the transaction. During the hearing several witnesses were examined, and corroborated the above particulars. The Court decided that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, as he had no power to sue for the amount; he was only agent to the agent for the ship.