RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4398, 24 April 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, April 23. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., 8.M.) REFUSAL OF DUTY. Robert Richardson and John Galpm, seamen belonging to the Edwin Fox, were charged with refusing duty during the voyage from England. The captain and second officer testified to the refractory conduct of the accused, both of whom stated that they were ill and therefore unable to work. The doctor of the Edwin Fox and Dr. Von Mirbaoh gave medical testimony as to the fitness of both men to perform their duties; the latter gentleman stating that Galpin’s right lung was affected but that there was nothing to prevent him doing light work. His Worship ordered the defendants to be committed for four weeks and to pay costs. ’ WILFUL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. Chas. Smith was charged with damaging the door of a whare on some Maori land on the ICarori-road. The prosecutor, Dan Mouton gave evidence as to the whare being let to him* and to the damage done by the defendant, but tile case really involved a dispute as to boundary ; and his Worship, under these circumstances, dismissed the information. DRUNKENNESS AND VAGRANCY. Julia Wall was charged with habitual drunkenness and vagrancy, having been convicted five times since the Bth March. About a week ago she narrowly escaped drowning at the wharf, while drunk, and on Thursday she was picked up in a helpless state of intoxication. Sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. Craig v. Swiney.—Claim, £l9, made up of £6 10s., balance of purchase money of a horse and £l3 10s. for damage caused by assault! Mr. Allan appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Moor! house for the defendant. . The evidence for the" plaintiff showed that on February last he sold' a horse to defendant for £l6 10s., £lO of this amount being paid down at the time, and a promissory note given for the remainder. Under this agreement the horse was handed over to Swiney, but when the promissory note became due he refused to pay the £6 10s., stating that it was not payable for a fortnight more. Plaintiff insisted that the money was due, and offered to take the horse back, but this the defendant wouldn’t agree to. In the evening plaintiff went to defendant’s place, and proceeding to the stable, was about to take the horse, when he suddenly “ found a man’s fist on his ear,” the consequence of which was that he “was knocked on one side.”. Turning round to get a view of his as yet unseen assailant, he saw that it was Swiney, who without further ceremony caught him by the coat and tore it Plaintiff, of course, at once “put up his forks ’’ and assumed the offensive, 1 The

wary Swiney then felt around for the nearest paling, and in .an unfortunate moment Craig turned to look at the horse. While thus engaged Swiney hit him on the head with the paling, and made him see so many stars that he wouldn’t like to swear to the exact number. Craig then took the rail from Swiney, and the latter ran away and picked up a big stone, with which he hit Craig in the mouth, and damaged his gums and three teeth. Swiney had since offered to pay for the horse and other expenses, but Craig wouldn’t consent to receive it, as he considered Swiney had acted in a very cowardly manner. Defendant’s version of the affair was, he did at first think the money under the promissory note was not due, but that when he found it was he asked Craig to wait till the end of the week. . The latter, however, was very abusive ; in fact, he was the worse for liquor, and he (Swiney) tried to keep out of his way. When he went to take the horse, defendant followed him and asked him what he was going to do. He said he was going to take the horse, and defendant said he should not have it. A scuffle ensued, during which Craig hit him a violent blow on the nose. The blow was of course returned, but defendant never struck him with a rail, a hone, or a stone. Expected Craig to come for the money, and would,have paid him had he not been so violent in his manner. The sum of £6 Bs. having been paid into court, his Worship gave judgment for this amount, and ordered each party to pay his own costs. The Titanic Steel Company appeared as plaintiff in seventeen cases against defaulting shareholders. Judgments were given for the amounts claimed, and costs. In the case of C. O. Montrose, the Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction.