RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 671, 11 February 1864, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Wednesday, February 10th. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

The Court opened at twenty minutes past 11 o'clock.

BkEAKIVQ-IN A HOBSB IN THE STREET.— Win. Baker was charged with breaking-in a hoise in the Btreet, coutrary to the 12th section of the Town and Police Ordinance. It was proved by the police that defendant could not manage a horse he was riding, and that the public safety was endangered by the animal. Defendant said the horse had been broken-in a twelvemonth before, but had been in the stable a week, and was fresh. The Magistrate considered that the practice of riding refractory^ horses in the streets should be put down, and inflicted a fine of 30s and costs.

OIVHi OASES.

Thomas' Moody v. J. Christie.—An adjourned case on a bill of exchange. Plaintiff,-as on the former occasion, failed to prove the signature of defendant, arid the case was again remanded. Weekham v. Blake.—No appearance. Solomon v. Riordan.-Mr M. Prendergast for the plaintiff, Mr Wilson for the defence. An action to recover L 5 13s for gas fittings, alleged to have been left in a house at defendant s request. The defence was that the plaintiff had already sued another person for the same things, and had received a verdict. A receipt in support of this defence from the plaintiff was put in. Mr Wilson remarked that the plaintiff was lucky in not standing on the other side of the Court charged with perjury. ■ Mr Prendergast objected to such imputations on hia client, but the Magistrate did not think the remark was out of order, and at once dis missed the case. Stewart v. M'Cann.—No appearance. Reeveß and (Jo v. Blake and Davis.—No appearance. Trustees of G Grant v. G. Cooper.—Settled out of Court. ■,„.,■„■ Jack v. Barnes and Sigley. —No appearance. Greenfield v. Laurie.—No appearance.

Wilts y. Henderson.—Ko appearance. . Riordan v. Stevenson and Kaye.—A* claim of X 13133, for work and labor done as far back a3 1882. Judgment by default for the amount claimed. • JNathan v. Coomb?.—An action on a bill of exchange for LI 7 23. Verdict for amount. Same v. Currie.—To recover L 5 damages, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through defendant damaging a sign. The two parties occupied the same premises, and a dispute took place as to the right of putting up their name 9on a pane of glass in front. Plaintiff had had his ~name painted on the whole of the glass, and alleged that defendant broke it afterwards. • It was for this damage the present summons was issued, but the plaintiff utterly failed to prove his case, or that the defendant had anything to do with the breakage complained of. The casa was disOlev'e and Casper v. M'Qee.—A claim for LB, damage sustained by plaintiff through neglect of defendant; as hired se■;van', iv allowing persons to dririk ale belonging to hU erap'oyers. De- ' fenidant * had been stor^man in charge of the plaintiff's free warehouse in Hop9-stre2t, and three hogsheads of ale were broaclwl during that time. lit wat to recover Vue value of" on i hogshead Init' t v-e present action was btought. In defence it was stated that it was Mi1 Caspar's owu .- men that drank tfie ale, and that defwulaat at the time was not in charge of the ale. Verdict for the amount-claimed, the magistrate remarking that if the plaintiff* had chosen they might nave faken another course, «ud had liim arrested on a charge of felony. .'..., , , Robhi3 v. Bernard.—-A claim for three weeks rent at LI 5s per week. Defendant, ad mit!ed one week as being due. and put in receipts for the •other two. Plaintiff denied that he bad received the money or given the receipts which were put in. The magistrate sail something was wrong on one side or other,- there was some hard swearing by one or other, party. The weight of evidence was in favor of the defendant, so a verdict for the amount admitted was given. J. 0. Strode, Esq. left the bench, and R. H. Foroaan, £sq, X.M, took his seat. Spicer and Murray v. Geddes-Thia wasan aotion to recover damages under the following circumstances:-Mr Strode as Kesident Magistrate recently gave an order for the burial of a child whose parents were destitute, The order was addressed to Spicer and Murray, but was taken to the defendant, who acted on it, buried the child, and got paid for the interment. Mr Strode was called to prove that the order was addressed*to the plaintiffs, but as the latter did not seek to press the case, nominal damages with coats were awarded. ■'■■-.