RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1354, 2 February 1865, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH.— Tuesday, Jan. 31. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Stealing fhom a Dwelling.—R. C. Roud was brought up on remand, charged with this offence, but on the application of the inspector was agaiu remanded until Friday. The following civil cases were disposed ofCole v. Low, debt, £16. Judgment for plaintiff for £13 and costs. Sutherland v. Millington, debt, £2. Judgment for plaintiff for 10s. and costs. Nicholson v. Palmer, debt, £2 10s. Juagment for plaintiff for full amount and costs, Gunnell and Forester v. Beady, debt, £8 13s. 7d. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Same v. Jackson, debt, £4 ss. 9d. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Same v. Selwood, debt, £4 0s 9d. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Schmidt v. Ashby, debt £9. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Coupe v. Manning, debt, £1 10s. Judgment for plaintiff for fall amount and costs. Cookson v. Hankins, debt, j £6 12s. Judgn ent for full amount ai)d costs.; Nicholson v. Palmer, debt £2 10s. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Gould and Mile# v. Adams, debt £2 10s. Judgment for plaintiffs for full amount and costs. Dunn v. Matthews, debt, £41 10s. lid. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount and costs. Farr and Cuff v. Nesbitt, debt, £6 6s. Judgment for plaintiffs for full amount and costs. The following cases, brought by the various Road Boards, were decided in favour of the Boards:— East Lincoln Road Board v. Lockhead. £1 is. Bd. Same v. Hampton, IBs. East Sefton Road Board v. Waterlow, £1 6s. Bd. Wednesday, Feb. 1. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M., and H. P. MurrayAynsley, Esq., J.P. Hollt v. Dale.—-This was an action brought to recover £60, the valne of a horse alleged to have been lost through the negligence of a person in the employment of the defendant, who is a ferryman on the Rakaia. Mr. Duncan appeared for the plaintiff,

Shf defendant. After hearing the evidence, the Resident Magistrate gave his decision in favour of the defendant, with costs and expenses of witnesses. . Macpherson v. Hutchinson.—ln this case Mr. Cowlishawj who appeared for the plaintiff, applied for a postponement for a week, in order to procure the attendance of a material witness. The case is one of disputed freight, the defendant being the owner of a craft. : Threatening Language"—Josiah Long was

charged with having used threatening language towards his wife. The complainant stated that, on January 80th, the prisoner accused her of improper conduct. He used the most outrageous language, and threw a knife at her, inflicting severe injuries. He was also in the habit of ill-treating her children •—a boy employed in a store and a girl aged about seven. He had frequently threatened to kill these children. A violent altercation took place between the parties, each accusing the other of being addicted to habits of intemperance and extravajmnco. The complainant asserted that she was in bodily fear from his violent conduct. The prisoner produced a pocket-book, from which he read extracts of the language used by his wife towards him. The complainant remarked that she had been frequently violently beaten by the prisoner, and her arms had been severely bruised. A witness, named Bennett, was called, and gave some evidence as to the terms on which the parties lived together. On being called upon for his defence, the prisoner entered into a long i statement, denying that he had ever assaulted his wife. He was not in the habit of ill-treating her, | although he confessed that they frequently disagreed. The Resident Magistrate remarked that he must be bound over to keep the peace towards all her Majesty's subjects, ana his wife in particular, himself in £100, and two sureties of £50 each.

LYTTELTON.—TUESDAY, Jan. 81, 1865. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) The Court was occupied this morning in disposing of several debt cases, but none of them contained any features of interest for the public; the following are the decisions:— U. Macpherson v. Dunn.—Claim for balance of account for a new cab, £29. Defendant pleaded a set-off, which plaintiff agreed to, reducing the demand to £17 12s 6d. Judgment for this amount, with costs. Hamilton v. Ferguson.—Claim for £6. No appearance of plaintiff. . Clark v. Danders.—Claim for £8 3s 4d. Mr. Priest appeared for plaintiff. Order from Supreme Court produced, giving defendant protection. The Resident Magistrate said the case must be dismissed. Plaintiffs solicitor held that this amount was not included in Captain Dander's schedule of debts. Johnson and Jenkins v. D. Flight.—Claim for £20 17s lOd. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default. - . , •„ Cummins v. D. Flight.—Claim for £23, balance of account for board and lodging, &c. Judgment by default. , . , Johnson and Jenkins v. G. Beechey.—Claim for £46 6s 6d, for goods supplied to defendant s order. Judgment by default. . _ Johnson and Jenkins v. F. Beechey.—Claim for £44 17s 7d, for goods supplied. Judgment by default. , , , M'Laren v. Bellinger.—Claim for £6 lis, for board and lodging. Defendant admitted the amount to be due, but was out of work and unable to pay at present. Judgment for full amount and costs.