RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Otago Daily Times, Issue 286, 19 November 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Tuesday, 18th November. Aiieged Assault by an Hotelkrepbr.—Adams v. Johnston.-Plaintiff stated that he had called at the Melbourne H<lel on Satuidayfor his box, and wasgeiinir away with it, when d fendant called him back, and producing paper, pen. and ink. desired him to write an order for money on Mr Mumfbrd. This plaintiff refused to do, whereupon defendant struck him a violent blow on the face wliich gave him a black eye, and another blow on the head. There was no one pivsent but defendant's wife, who drew her husband away, and plaintiff made his escape. Defendant s story was, that he bad civilly asked plaintiff for payment of an accouut due, and on receiving some insulting Janguage instead of the money, he pushed p arntiff fr.. m the r«>om. Plaintiff having no other evidence, and th-re being no traces of an assault on his peison, the Magistrate eiismissed the case. civi> CASES. Obstbuctikg the Stue.ts.—Robert Marshall was fined, m absence, 20s aud co4s for depositing a quantity of earth in View-street. Pole, Dudds, and Cameron, were fined, in absence, lO.s ai^d cosfs, for laying a quantity of rubbish in Battn-y street Havid Weir was charged with obstiuctirig Maclagganstreet. by unpacking goods in the street. Case . isrnissed < n defendant paying costs of action. Cnarles Koss was also acijudged to pay the costs for a similar off ne'e. Donald Henderton was fined, in absence \ 20s and costs, for the same offence. Ja . Morrison! Walker-stree\ was fined 20s and costs for allowing a drain to overflow. John K. Webb was fined in 3»s and costs for having, on the llth inst, landed tL»h on the m w jetty. A Nick Question.—T H. Whittingfon was charged with ha\ing unlawfully rem yed stone used in tne formation of Rattray- street. From the evidence it appeared that defendant was employed by the cont-actor to lay down the gas-pipes in the street Ibis necessarily displaced a quantity of earth or stone, which c-uilel not again be put into the drain and that the defendant had carted away; the defence being that it was rubbish they were obli-ed to remove, and not stone or road metal. Inspector Nimon stated that he had his infbrniation from the Town fr 0a«- }} ls wors',.it)' after bearing the defendant and Mr Huddlestone, dismissed the ca.- e , w j t h the recommendation that in.future they should have the written authouiy of tbe lovvn $oard as to the disposal of such earth orslone. ■ Affiliation Case,—Reid v Pinman.—This was an action b;ought IvMaiy Reid to compel defendant to support a female child, borne by her, and of wmch defendant was stated to be the father. The defence was a denial ot the paternity, 'ihe plaintiff; who gave her evidence m a timorous hesitation manner, said that m February last she was servant in Flanmgans Hotel where defendant occasionally boarded. About the middle of the month the left the place, and went home to her friends in Oamam. A mght or two previous to this she went a mesrage for an acquaintance, anel meeting defendant he accompanied her, when intercourse took place by the way. At the house she was going to they had i some di mk, and he proposed tliat they should sleep together, but the landlady m% 'allenr & la£

terc urse took place again on the nieht before f he lift, arm she drd not see defendant till she came back te> Dune.hu last week. The child was born on the 6 h instant. Def ndant, for whom Mr Ward was solie-i----lor. on being allowed to teil bis story, eieni d evt-r having been <>n intimate terms with the olaintifF. He had merely peen and spoken to her as he passed the kitchen ot Flni.iiignn's Hotel to his bedroom, tin the night mentioned he accidentally m.-t h<r on the lull above MaclHa-gan-stri-et, when she rennoste Ihhu to accompany br to her friend's house, where she introouced him'as her sweetheart. He denied hen that he was so. Tiny went together for some Honor, retu njng to thehou>e, where they had three tuniiib re of toddy. On leaving she followed and ask^l him to sleep with her, saying that, she liked him very much but he we.uh; not con em. Afterwards he got. stupid from tbe drink he had taken, but was cenaiu theie had beeu no intercourse. Nothing more was heard ot her till last week, when the woman whose hruse they had been in, came to him. saidi that plaintiff had a chid, he was the father, and asked him to pay handsomely for it aud no one woulel know anything of the matter. He refused to grv« a penny, being certain that he could nor. be the tather, ana the action was brought His Worship considered that plaintiff had p. oven her case, anil asked whether sue would take a weekly allowance o; ius, or a sum as condensation in full. After some hesitation plaintiff said she would take £100. His Vror>hip: " \\ ould you like to know my opinion ' 1 ritink, under the circumstances, £-20 is amply fcumcient. J his has not been a ca<e ot seduction, and you appear more to blame than him " IMVrdart consenting, judgment was given for £:>0 and costs.