RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 151, 10 May 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fpiday, 9th May, 1862. (Before Alfred Chetham Strode, Esq., R.M) Drunkenness. Richard Myles, charged by Constable .Coneys, was fined 20s for this offence, wjth nine days' imprisonment, there being a previous conviction on the Court record. ■: Harry Duncan, charged by Constable Jones, was fined 20s, or in default, committed for 48 hours. • Vagkancy.—John Watson was charged on the information of Charles > Simmons, with being on the premises of Mr.'.William ■Wotsou with intent to commltafelony. There hnd been several thefts committed on the* premises of the prosecutor, and the prisoner was suspected of being concerned- in, their perpetratiou. .The prisoner called as evidence of his previous character the testimony of one. Ralston, who had lieeu, but a few'days previously, arraigned before the Bench on an information charging him with broaching carpo on board the Major, punt. This fact rather damaged his case than otherwise,, and his Worship U'ntenced the defendant to. fourteen days' imprisonment with Jiard labor,: warning that if lie were '.brought before the Court again, he would be committed for three months as a common loafer.

. The police businessuterminnted in a few minutes, and the Court then.'adjourned at'noon to the Athenaeum;" for the purpose of adjudicating the Civil Causes.

fc- The Gourt having been opened; in the Athenceum, ■ in High-street, the following cases werecalled :— Pilkinoton v. Duniop.—ln this ease Richard PilMngton charged Robert Duniop with permitting his horse to stray within*the' boundary of Dunedin. It being a first offence, the defendant was'fined' Is. and Hosts,, ■/ '"'■ ■ ■'.. :■ Cankon v. Kenhepy.—Ordered to stand over. • Guy v. Cottoh.—No appearance of either party. Field v. Pink.—No' appearance of either party. , Taylor v. Stephenson.—No appearance of either ■party. ' ■■*•': " • ' ' ' '■'. r •,'.. : ' . ' " Flinn v. Uhdertvood.—No appearance of defendant. The plaintiff, Patrick Fhnn,'was present. The-action was brought for three weeks' rent, amounting in all to £2 6s. .Judgment in favor of plaintiff for the full amount claimed, together with costs, 3s. Brown v. Muik.—No appearance of either party. Beer v. Angerstein.—No appearance of either .party. ■ ■ . .. ■ . •■■*•''■.■:■■ ■ ' Kaiston v. Barnett. —No appearance of plaintiff. Mr. Ward for-the defendant, John Barnard, who had been sued in a wrong name, v Case dismissed. RnoniE v. Same.—'No appearance of plaintiff.•Case dismissed. * ■■■:•■'. : Fakoie, Paterson- & Co. y. Bitrnett.—No appearance of defendant. Personal service of summons wasprovecl. This was a claim for brandy, whisky, and other spirits, supplied from January 6th to Februaryl9th, amounting in all to £88 Os. 6d.: credit by cash, £79 65., leaving a balance due of £8 I2s. 6d. Judgment for plaintiff, by default, in the sum of £8 12s. 6d., together with costs, 6s. -.;■ ' Cqllyjss v. Harness.—-No appearance of either paytyi'"' '':/l ■■■;' :' ' " '"■'" '"." '. '. ■.' ' . MApDQNAtD Y. DIIMajTT ASD HUITBILE.— Mr. Pntten fi>r the plaiutiff, Colin Macdonald; Mr. Kenyon for the defendants. The action was brought to recover dnninges from the defendants for not furnishing Colin Macdomild^ purser of the Mary E Ray, with: suitable accommodation. The defence was to the effect that plaintiff had sued the defendants as though they were charterers! of the vessel, but that the defendants had nothtng ■whatever to do with the case. They were not charterers; they wer^e not owners; and were only acting under a power of attorney from Frederick Adams, of Melbourne, the owner pfthe vessel. Plaintiff said he had done his duty, and had been the only person on board the - Mary.E. Ray whtf had not been provided with a proper berth'to sleep in. At times he said, he was obliged to sleep upon a table in the steerage, and at others upon tire floor of the saloon cabin. Most of the passage tickets were signed " J. A. Huxtable," j but the office of Dummett and Huxtable was in Melbourne at thc.sume place as Frederick Adams and Co.'s, Plaintiff had seen Mr. Dummett sign cheques oh the bfttikintlie name of Adams and Co. Mr. Kenyon, ivn oatb, proved that he knew the defendants mentioned in tho power of attorney produced, nnd within the past fortnight he had received instructions from these, gentlemen, as the attorneys for Adams and Co.. the owners of the Mary E. Ray. The Court considered that plaintiff had sustained damage by the violation of the contract, but the liabilitydid not rest with the present defendants. The Bench had no alternative but to dismiss the ease, : leaving plaintiff to bring an action against Messrs. - Adams and Co.. .

Lazakus y. Lowe. —Claim of £8 15s on 11 gallons pale nrandy, leakage from cjwk—caused by bad stowage, jE7 H.s; paid survey fees, £1 Is—total £8 15s. Judgment Sir plaintifl in the sum of £8 Is, costs to follow the judgment, but no expenses allowed.