RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1350, 9 February 1865, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH.—Tuesday, Feb. 7. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M) Assault.—Arthur Sullivan, who was brougn p on bail, charged with this offence, was agft" nianded on the same bail until the following My* Wilful Damage.—Emma Knight was clluirg with having broken a window at the residenc — Earnshaw. She was ordered to pay 10s. the value of the property destroyed. Drunk and Incavaple. — James Clary charged with this offence, and the charge navn g been proved, was fined 10s. . , The following cases of debt were disposed ox, J u . # ment for plaintiffs for full amounts and costs wing given :—Cudden v. Brown, debt, £2 14s Gd ; Hemmings v. Smith & Co., debt, £10 ; same v. Berry, debt,£s 5s ; same v. Coupo, debt, £13 5s ; . 1 Baker, d«bt, £19 19s Id; Stringer and Co. vdebt, £7 9s; same v. White, debt, £17 Ijs 5 Hancock v. Hurry, debt, £3 3s 7d; same v. debt, £7 I7s2d; Newton v. Flowers, debt, £5 7s bo. In the ease of Smart v. Turner, the plaintiff claimed £11 Bs, and obtained judgment for £3 3s and costs, Wednesday, Feb. 8. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Assault.—Arthur Sullivan was brought up on remand, charged with having committed a violent assault on John Sampson. There being no appearance of the prosecutor, the case was dismissed. Stealing from the Person.—John Quarry was charged with this offence. It appeared from the evidence of the apprehending constable, that the prisoner was given into his custody on Tuesday last, on the charge of having stolen 12s from the pocket of a man named Hossack, as he was lying asleep in Messrs. Cobb and & Co.'s yard. Witness cautioned him, and he confessed that he had stolen the money. A. G. Howland deposed that he saw the prisoner search Hossack's pockets, and take something therefrom. Witness seized his hand, and found half-a-sovereign and two shillings in it. He identified the money produced in court by the marks which he had made .upon it. Another witness having corroborated the testimony of Howland, the Resident Magistrate observed that a most deliberate robbery had been committed, and sentenced the prisoner to a month's imprisonment, with hard labour. Larceny.—James M'Kay was brought up on a charg"fe of larceny. It appeared from the evidence of the constable that the prisoner had been given into his custody, charged with having stolen a small quantity of brandy from a decanter on the bar of Mr. Mills, the landlord of the Forester's Hotel. Prisoner confessed that he had helped himself to a few glasses of grog, but asserted that he had had permission to do so. The barman of the hotel was called, and corroborated the evidence of the constable ; he denied having given the prisoner leave to take the liquor. Some other testimony was adduced ; and the prisoner stated that he had taken the grog, intending to pay for it: he had offered to do so. The Resident Magistrate remarked that as there was a certain amount of doubt about the felonious intention of the prisoner, he should give him the benefit of that doubt, and should dismiss the case. The following debt cases were disposed of:— Macpherson v. Hutchinsan, debt, £49 lis 8d; judgment for defendant with costs. In the annexed cases judgment in full for the plaintiffs was given, with costs—Birdsey v. O'Neill, £24 18s; Briscoe v. Oswald, debt, £35 19s; Meller v. Baker, debt, £26 9s 10d; Creyke v. 1 Nennell, debt, £12 12s; Rhodes v. Smart, debt, £35 10s 2d. In the case of Ward and Co. v. Baker, the plaintiffs claimed £60, and were awarded £38 18s and costs.

LYTTELTON.—Tctesdat, FEB. 7, 1865. (Before W. Donald, R.M.; and A. W. Shand, J.P.) The Court was occupied this morning in disposing of civil cases. An application was made by Mr. W. Julian for a transfer of the license for the Mitre Hotel, but owing to there not being a quorum of magistrates on the bench, the Court could not entertain it. Harrison v. Heightley—Claim for £8 Is 4d. Judgment for full amount and costs. Defendant did not appear. Clarkson v. Kinnear—Claim of £10 6s, for damages sustained to the cutter Ellen. From the evidence, it appeared that during a gale of wind on Tuesday, Jan. 3, defendant's vessel, the Mary Louisa, fouled the cutter, and carried away her bowsprit, besides doing other damage to the top rail and bulwarks; and the cause assigned for this was stated by a seaman named Wm. Od«y, of the Ellen to he that the schooner got foul of the cutter owing to not being properly moored, and not having sufficient chain paid out from her anchors. The evidence on the other side showed that this was purely accidental, ! and could not be avoided. The hands belonging to the Mary Louisa were driven, down the harbour in their dingy, and could not return to give assistance. The vessel dragged her anchors with 55 fathoms of chain out at one of the anchors, and 47 at the other: he had only three fathoms left to pay out. Plaintiff might have prevented collision if he had liked. Plaintiff said the schooner was known to drag her anchors if it was blowing, but failed to show that there had been any act of negligence on the part of the defendant, and the Bench dismissed the case. Cochrane v. Christian.—Claim for £6, balance of account owing for work done by contract. Plaintiff said he contracted with defendant to place two chains under the schooner Canterbury, for the purpose of raising her. He was to be paid £10. He brought two witnesses to prove the work was done. Defendant said, on the representation of one of the last witnesses, he advanced £4.- He told him that they had put the chains under the vessel. Next day, the master of the lighter Glasgow proved that he was requested by Captain Christian to go over to Stoddart Point, and assist to lift the schooner. On attaching his vessels to the chains, he found they were not under her bottom, but round by her stern, and under the fore foot only, and therefore they could not lift her. Defendant said the contract was to place a chain under the foremast, and another under the mainmast. The con tractor had not done the work properly, and he considered he was not obliged to pay till it was. The plaintiff said, owing to a heavy roll in the harbour from the N. E., the chains had no doubt moved. The case was adjourned for a week,- to allow the defendant to bring further evidence to prove the chains were not under the vessel.

THE HOKITIKA TOWNSHIP. TO THE EDITOR 01" THE LYTTELTON TIMES. Sir,— Having just seen the report of your correspondent on the Grey goldfields, in your issue of the 17 th inst., in which he states that I laid out the township of the Hokitika in blocks, &c.; that on my second visit I was dissatisfied with my former arrangements, and then laid off the allotments again at right angles with the road, the result being to make the corner allotment a triangle instead of a rectangle, and thereby doing an injustice to the owner, who was the first settler. Your correspondent appears to have been misinformed on. the subject, the following being the facts, viz.:—On my first visit I laid off the township in allotments 30 x 60, at right angles to the road. The corner block was then a triangle, and of which the claimant was aware. I have never altered these allotments since first laid out; but on my second visit, in laying out an allotment the second time on another street, I found it was not parallel with the main street, and that some error had been made. 1 rectified the error at once and adjusted the allotments to the satisfaction of all concerned. This readjustment did not interfere in any way with the allotments in dispute. ... I was called on by the claimant of the adjoining allotment to settle the diipute. In doing, so I received the blow of the shovel from the owner of the corner allotment, who disputed my authority, and refused to abide by it. As the statements of your correspondent are likefy to lead to false impressions, I trust that you will correct the error by inserting this letter. WILLIAM H. REVELL, Provincial Government Agent. Hokitika, West Coast, 30th Jan., 1865.

Purrs of Cosmetics.—A droll instance °^ ice in this kind of literature is the following puff ot newly-discovered " Bloom of Youth," from the -A* York SundayMercvry,—"Mrs,Lincoln is a consum of the article, and an excellent customer of the pr - prietor. Having been snubbed by the Europ'e aristocracy on account of her low breeding, 8,10 . once hit upon a method of placing herself on pinnacle of fashion in spite of them, hy inves g herself with the attribute which is the I * tt^ 1 80l J r i" m supremacy in her sex—to wit, beauty and tlio >> of youth. With this invaluable preparation her en become irresistible, and one sly glance out ° corner of her eye will bring all the foreign mm > generals, and celebrities around Washington g ing to her feet. All such accomplishments a pots and tyrants boast of, such as good manne a graceful deportment, she can laugh to scorn, . her neck displays the hue of the lily " e ,. the colour of the rose. The Queen of England to be mad with jealousy, and Eugene is renay into fits since Mrs. Lincoln has commence smear herself with this talismanic compoun , j n „ its proprietor positively avers enables any o it to command the admiration of the °pp without regard to age, circumstances, tcoro ings in life. This it is that supplementsithe ibor lrom of nature. Beauty has ever ruled the w ' Cleopatra down to Mrs. Lincoln."