RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 73, 8 February 1862, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, January 7. (Before A. 0. Strom:, Esq., KM.) DKUBKENXESS AKJ) ISUECEXCY. J. It. Popham, Thoinns Brennan, and John Ferguson, were each fined 10s. for (IrimkonnqHS. John Ferguson wan also fined 3s. and costs for indecent exposure of liis person. Millar Ritchie, for the same offence, was fined 30s. anil costs. A similar fine was also inflicted upon Henry Lewis for the same ofl'euee. irrcinvAY noiinuisr. Henry Garrett, was brought up on remand, charged with highway robbery, but on the application of the Commissioner of Police, lie was again remanded for seven days, in order to procure the attendance of essential witnesses. op,stri'ol'i:;o the TironouaiiPAni!. John Ogilvieand Thomas Norton, were charged by tlie Inspector of Nuisances with neglecting to remove certain buildings which they had erected on the street line. An extension of time until Monday was given. Henry Marks, was charged with refusing to remove hU cases of fruit from t'io street after he had been ordered to do so. The defendant having pleaded that he was not on the line of street, the ease was adjourned until Monday, in order to have the ground measured. A charge of having some barrels on the street against T. B. Smith, was discharged. NinSAXCKtS. An information for nuisance agaiiist]Henry Lawraneo, was postponed. Donald Henderson and P. \7. Hutton, were charged with throwing rubbish on the street, but the cases were dismissed on payment of the costs. miEACUKS OF LICENSING OBDINA.NCE. S. E. R. Jones, of tin; Provincial Hotel, was charged with permitting liquor to be supplied after ton o'clock at night, contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Ordinance. Mr. Sub-Inspector WeHlun stated that he was aware of the difficulty of closing' a large establishment like the Provincial to a minute, and he did not wisli to press the charge if Mr. Jones would only bo careful tor the future. The case was therefore dismissed. John M'Noill, of the Queen's Arms Tavern, was charged with allowing' liiiuor to be sold before six o'clock in the morning, it appeared that there had >eon some mistake as to the time, and ho had opened his house before the legal hour. The police stated that the house was usually well conducted, so the case was dismissed. CARELESSNESS. Henry Howorth, for allowing two horses to stray within the town, was fined 5s and costs. John M'Grcgor was charged with leaving his horse and cart unattended to in the street. The charge being denied, it was postponed, to allow defendant to produce evidence. John M'Geeghan and Robert Bond were each fined 10s and costs for a similar offence. Henry Bennett was fiued 2s Gd and costs for allowing his chimney to catch fire. . John M'Laven, for the gams offence, was fined a similar sum. Win, Kenlaw, for allowing a horse, his property, to stray within the limits of the town, was J fined Is and costs. John Kneebone, for leaving his i horse and cart unattended to in the street, was fined c 10s and costs. Win. Lamont, for allowing two horses to stray within the town, was fined 2s and cost«. v

PUSIOUS RIDING. Antonio Spence was charse.'l wii.li furious riding in Gcoi-gH-street :m Suudsiy last, for whioh ofiuuee ho was fined £■£ ami costs. * | KKKI'IXG UKRKOISTKIIiII) 1)00. I Wm. Lament was charged with keeping an j unregistered dog, for which ho was fiued £l and costs. . CIVIL CASK. The Commissioner of IViiee appaarel to answer the demand of Patrick Cahill, for tho sum of £10, being wa^es for 20 days work, nf, Tuapeka, at £1 per day. " '• The dfifrtmiJilit said that tha Sergt. Major of Polios, at Tui'.peka, about 5 months ago. emtaaed the plaintiff, j Ito build (Mile stables there. 110 worked 20 days, at j £1 per .day, but that on .his being appointed I a Revenue Constable, to lay informations for sly grog selling, he had agreed to,waive the present claim. Segfc. Oifujor 'Bracken said, that he ha.l heard the complainant say to tho Commissioner of Police, that he did not care for the money. Mr. Prendergast, who appeared for the plaintiff; said that if two"such dignitaries as thy Commissioner of Police and a Revenue Constable, had not been concerned he would have regarded tlw case as a chaff. He submitted that there was no evidence of a release having been given. Judgment was given for the amount sued for, with costs. | furious wnrviNO. I ■ Win. Lee was charged with driving through Princes Street, in a manner calculated to endanger the lives and limbs of other people, for whioh offence he was fined £2 and costs, the defendant remarking that lie thought the Court was very hard on a careful num. Cook v. Edhouse. This was an action brought by Mr. Cook, Solicitor, against John Kdhouse, for the recovery of the costs of the defence of the dnfendant's wife on the charge of attempt to mmiler. Mr. Cook cited several easea to prove that the husband was liable for the cost of her defence, although the offence had been committed against the husband. "Mr. H«worfch appeared for the defendant, and contended that Mr. Cook had baen assigned as counsel for the defence by the Judge of the .Supreme Court, and that oven if he had not been, he was not entitled to recover from the husb.wid. Mr. Howarth said he had heard the Judge assign Mr. Cook as Counsel for thcjdefonce, which Mr. Cook did, stating that the Judge had never appointed him, or even spoken to him on the subject in Sir. Howarth's presence. Mr. Howorth also objected that the month's notice of Mr. Oook'saetion, which was reqnn'ed.bythe "Law Practitioners' Act" had not been given. The Court held this objection to be good and dismissed the ease, Mr. Cook stating that he* would renew the action at the expiration of the month.