RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 827, 16 August 1864, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, 15th August. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq.. R.M. Drunk and Disorderly.—James Macbeth, James Loafer, aud Kdmund Bempsey, charged with being drunk, were each fined 20s, or 48 hours' imprisonment. Daniel Robinson, charged with the same offence, was discharged, as he had been in custody since Saturday evening. Catherine Doolan, an old offender, was charged with being drunk, and fined 40s, or one week's iraprisoL-ment. The same person was further charged, with wilfully breaking a tub of the value of 14s, in the lock-up. Ifc appeared that the prisoner, when she was put into the cell for being drunk, was very violent, and wilfully kicked the tub to pieces. She was ordered to pay the value of the tub. or go to prison for other, four days. Alexander Fawcett. a colored shoeblack, was charged with creating adisturbance in -S-afford'street, 'on the morning of the 14th instant. ' Asstf'LT. — Francis Deale and Kenneth M'Kenzie were charged with violently assaulting John H. Noding, keeper of the Saddle hill foil-bar, at 7.30 p.m, on the 14th inst. The complainant stated that shortly after seven o'clock on Sunday evening two four-horse waggons, with several loose horses behind, were driven up to the toll-bar by the two defendants. M'Kerziewas in charge of the first, waggon, and he passed through the bar saying, that Deale, who had charge of the second waggon, would pay for both. Deale paid him for the ' waggons, bufc only gave bim threepence for three loose horses Complainant said, " This will never do," and asked another sixpence, but Deale refused to pay any more. He "then ran forward and .eized hold of the two leaders, turning them round, so that the waggon could nofc proceed. Three men then jumped "on him, seized hold of him and rolled "im on the ground,. Then Deale give him the 6d he Dai asked for, and complainant, thought the row was all over, when Deale lifted up a large piece of road metal and threwit at comp'ainanfc, striking him asevere blow on the eye. (Oomp'ainanfc's eve was very mu'*h cut and discolored.) He then followed the waggons on foot till he saw where fche men encamped for the ni.ht, when he went into Caversham station and took out the constable, who arrested the prisoners. M'Kenzie was one of the men who jumped on the "toll-keeper and pulled him down, and he swore that Deale was the man who threw the stone at him, M'Kenzie denipd having juraped'on the toll keeper, or touched him in any way. Deale said thafc he offered the money the complainant wanted, but they had a few words about an extra threepence which the toll-keeper wished to charge, but he afterwards saw thafc hi* was wrong and said it was all right. The to.lkeeper was drunk, and Deale called him a drunken fw<jep, when the toll-man seized hold of ■ him by the throat, and a struggle ensued, iv the course of which they both fell to theground. He denied having thrown a stone. Two passengers who were in the waggons al-, the time of the quarrel corroborate 1 Deale's statement, and swore that the toll-man struck the firsfc hlow afc Deale. Neither of them saw Deale throw a stone at the complainant. a.s the weight of evidence was in favor of the defendants, the Magistrate dismissed the case.' Charge of Stealing a Hammer.—David Hill, a blacksmith, was charged, ou the information of Edmund Pritchard, with stealing one hammer and handle, of the value of Ll, from the workshop in Rattray sfcreet, on the 10th instant. i Mr Barton appeared for the prosecutor, and said that if the Bench was willinu, he would not nress the matter any'further. But fche facts ol the cisc were that Mr Pritchard had on Saturday dismissed the prisoner, who was in his employ. The prisoner was going away when Mr Pritchard noticed thafc he had something concealed under hia apron. He asked him what he had there, wh n prisoner replied that it was a hammer, bufc refused to give it up as he said it was his own. He was then given in charge. Mr Barton thought the mistake might hava arisen in prisoner's mind, because some time ago he made the hammer on prosecutor's premises and with his material?. The p*i?oner said he wished the case to go on, as the hammer was his, and he could prove it. He denied having concealed it iv any way. Ifc. was the habit of the trade for a workman when leaving a shop to roll up his tools in his apron, and this was what ha had done. The Maaistrate would not allow the matter fco go any further The cass wa« unfit for prosecution, and he therefore dismissed it, st the same time advising the prisoner to bring a civil action to recover po^essionof the hammer, if he thought that he could prove that it was his property. CIVIL oases. * . J. Currie v.. J^'H. Lawlor.- Claim of L 9 18s for twenty-two days' work on the road at Tokomairiro. Mr Wilson appeared for the defending and pleaded nofc indebted. He asked the witness if he ha-1 kept any tally of the days he had worked, and was answered in the negative, but he produced the overseer's order, which showed that he was only entitled to twelve days' work. Mr Wilson said the defendant was willing to pay according to tbe overseer's order. Ihe plaintiff said the order was wrong, for he had not received credit for ten days' work. Mr Wilson asked the plaintiff several times why he did nofc complain to Mr Lawlor since he came to town of this conduct on the part of his overses-r. The defendant, who apppared to be a very illiterate man, first c'aded the question, and then he answered first that he was ashamed, and then he admitted thafc he did try to speak to Mr Lawlor one?, but that gentleman would not stop to listen to him. Mr Wilson continued in a loud and excited tone to ask the witness fco answer hh question, when the Magistrate said—l will not have a witness bullied in this manner, Mr Wilson. Mr Wilson: lam not bullying the witness, and I never do. The Magistrate ;I am not very sure about that. Mr Wilson ; lam very well satisfied myself on that point. The Magistrate. 1 will nofc have au appirently illiterate tmn bullied in this Ccurt. Mr VVilson : I am not in the habit of bullying any one. I never do ifc, and I consider myself as good a judge of thafc a* any person. I will not ask the witness another question. The witness was then examined by the Magistrate, and said he had asked the overseer of the works to give him particulars of his claims against Mr Lawlor, but he was kept at Tokomairiro a month waiting for the overseer to give ifc him, but he never got it. He was so poor that durinsr the month lie had been kept waiting he had to live on rice. He had kept no tally ofthe number of days hs had worked, but he was sure he had worked twenty-two. Tbe Magistrate, to witness : It wai incumbent on you to have proved your claim to have kept s-me tally. Mr Wilson : Then the greater necessity for his being guided by a person who did so. The Magistrate, to witness: You are in such a position that you must rely on the overseer's statement. Mr Wilson, to the Bench: This claim is wrong, and it is disputed. You should not throw out any such insinuation against the overseer. The Magistrate: What I have to say I will say to your face or to any man's. And I say that Mr Lawlor seems not at all inclined to pay his OILMEN'S STORES, &c,

debts from the number of summonses *''»* »re taken out in this Court against him. Mr Wilson: For this reason, the Government will not pay him.. The Magistrate : T have nothiner to ao with the Government. Mr Wi.'snn : But he Has to do with the Government. The Magistrate: I don't care. I will not see any poor man aefmiried so long as I sit on this bench. As tne plaintiff could not prove his claim he was nonsuited. Robinson, Hart and Co. v. Jack.— C:aim of Ll2 IK as balance of an account for goods. Mr Barton appeared for the defendant and at once moved for a, non-suit on the grounds that this was a splitting- action, and that the ci.se' had been already decided. Some time ago the plaintiffs suel the defendant for an account, amounting to L3_ 10s. and reduced their claim to I 2!) to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. The nlaintifi. then ob tamed judgment for the L2O, and they now brought; another action to recover the balance of their account. Tho Magistrate said of course this could not be permitted, and granted the non-suifc. Martin v. Jenkinson. — A re-hearing was granted in this case, for Friday next. Sott. v. Mr and Mrs Campbell. - Claim of L 2 2s 61 for sundry confectionary good* supplied to the defendant's wife, before defendant married her, and while she kept a shop in the Arcade. The defence was that the goo's had been delivered at the shop after the date on which the female defendant had maie the shor> over to her son, a young man about 19>e>rs of age. Judgment for fche plaintiff, with cost.". Butement Brothers v. G. Davies.— This case was called on and adjourned sine die, the defendant being at present inprison. W. J. Lang v. A- G.- Fisher and Co —Before, this case was proceeded with, Mr O'Loughlin, who appeared for the defence, askod that, Mr G. Perriman should be called on his subpoena. This was done, and the witness did not answer. Service b f the summons was proved, and a summons was ordered to be issued for him to show cause why he should not be fined for contempt of Court. Mr O'Loughlin then stated that in consequence of the absence of this witness, he could not proceed with his case. He asked for an adjournment. The other side, could not consent to a shorter adjournment than two months, as Mr Fisher was going to Melbourne. The case was adjourned for two months. A. Murray's trustees v. Mrs E. Paterson.— Claim of L 3 7s 3d for drapery goods.' The debt, was admitted. Judgment by consent for the amount, wifch costs. J. Poggi v. J. Lachaume.—Claim of Ll4. This was an action to recover X7lss, the amount paid for two albert chains, warranted by the defendant to be colonial gold, and-which turned oufc to he brass; T5 as the v«iue of ten ornaments left in ' the defendant's possession, and Ll 5s as special-damages, owing to the refusal of the defendant'to. give up the plaintiff's goods. Both the- parties in this action were Italians, and as the plaintiff could nofc speak English fluently, Martin Quadri was used as an interpreter during the trial. The plaintiff's story was, that he went to the shop occupied by the defendant as a jeweller in George street, when defendant asked him if he would purchase any chains. Plaintiff did purchase two Albert chains, for which he paid L 7 15s, defendant guaranteeing them to be fine gold. He went up country, leading with the defendant ten ornaments (stucco images), and when he discovered that his chains were brass, he came to town and demanded his money back from,.defendant. This was refused, and hence the ■■ prespnt action. The defence was the chains were sold as brass, not as gold, and that the plaintiff did not pay, ; the price for them which he alleged he had done. Defendant produced his books, and swore thafc he sold to the plaint'ff one guard chain for los, three albert chains for 15s, and two long chains for os each. Immediately after the purchase had been made, the plaintiff objected to the chains because' thej had not, a golden appearance, and the defen-*----dant'then went, with hira to a person who gilt the whole lot for 20s. Defendant's shop had recently been robbed of a quantity of chains and-watches. When plaintiff came and asked him to take back the chains—he refused. The plaintiff threatened him, and said he would do him an injury. Just afc thafc time a policeman entered fche shop to enquire about the robbery, and defendant told him that he was afraid of ttie plaintiff, The constable went and searched the plaintiff's' house, and although none of the stolen property was found there, plaintiff was so enraged that he threatened to' bring the present action. A witness was produced, named Hufeneller, who swore that he gilded the chains in question for the plaintiff for 20.9. The case was "dismissed. Thomson v. M'Lennan.—CJaiua of £2 10i on defendant's order. The debt was admitted, bufc defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was due him money to this amount. No notice of set-off having been eiven, judgment was passed for the plaintiff with costs. ', Seobellv. Bennett.—Claim"of Ll 7s, being fche price of a pair of boots. Plaintiff made a pair of boots for defendant, and guaranteed them to fit him. If not he was to return them in two days. Defendant»did return them, but. it was some time afterthe two days ; and he admitted thafc he had worn them in the interval. Judgment for . the plaintiff, with costs. Aikman. Knight and Co. v. H..Ball.—Claim ofLl7.lslld. being the balance of an account for goods supplied. The debt was admitted, and as a deduction in the account wa3 agreed upon, judgment was given for the plaintiff in the sum of Ll4 4s lid, and costs. Harris v. Cousins.-Claim of Ll 10s. As this case had previously been before the Court and then dismissed,' ifc was again similarly dealt with. Dalrymple v. H. Williamson.—Claim of Ll4 for use and occupation ot the Supreme Court Hotel, Stuart-street. A set-off was put in for the defendant to'the ■amount.'of Lll for repairs done by the defendant to the Hotel, and L 3 was paid into Court. Judgment for the plaintiff, the amount paid into court, and costs. . * Allan v. Moran.—This was an action to recover damages fov injury sustained under the following circumstances, as stated by the plaintiff:—On the night of the 16th of July the phintiff was in the Arcide, and went into the defendant's house in which a singing conceit was going on. He had only one drink, and then asked for a cigar. He got one, but it was so bad that he refused to. pay 61 for ifc. At that moment the landlord of the house (the defendant) came.up and asked whit was the matter. When he had been told, he seized the plainby the throat and threw him right down stairs, saying tint he would not come up again that night The plaintiff's shoulder was dislocated by"the fall, and his back and hands were much injured. He had not been able since to resume work, and he claimed hi* wages from the 16th July, at the rate of Bs. per day, and also his doctor and druggist's expenses. Two men who were |.present at the time swore thafc the plaintiff was sober, and that the defendant deliberately pushed I him down stairs. The defendant's story was i thafc the plaintiff came into the Hotel drunk, and... commenced quarrelling about a cigar and creatine: a serious disturbance in the concert-room.* Defendant was coming oufc of the cancert-room with a trayful of glasses in his hand^. The plaintiff seized him by the vest at the head of the stairs, and was hanging on by him, when the buttons of the vest broke and the plaintiff fell down stairs. Defendant did nofc push him. Mr Rich, who was managing the concert-room on the night in question, gave evidence that the plaintiff was drunk acd created a disturbance, interrupting the proceedings of the concert. The Magistrate expressed himself sorry for what had happened to the plaintiff, but he thought he had brought it all ou himself. Case dismissed, Judgments by default were given for the plaintiffs in the following cases:—D. Heganv. J. H. Lawlor, Ll3 4s 91; W. Mea v, M. Codyre, L 3 53; Binniev. Dickson, Lls. The cases of R. Wilson and Co. v. Mundle, and Geddes v. Burge, were dismissed in consequence of the non-appearance of the parties. AT THE ROOMS OF