RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 1051, 3 May 1865, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, May 1. (Before A. G. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

"DmvKKSxzaa and DisoßUEßxr Cosovcr. -—Kateßrown, an old offender, was charct-d with having been drunk, and was fined £3 or ten days' imprisonment. For a similar offence, Michael Casse}' was fined 20s or 48 hourß' imprisonment, and James Parley, John Glceson, and John Dale, were discharged, as they had been in custody since Saturday night. Fanny Edwards was charged on the information of Detective Farrell with resisting and assaulting him while in the execution of his duty. The evidence of the Detective was that he had occasion to go to the house kept by the prisoner to search for a person for whom he had a warrant. He found the person he was in search of lying in a bed in the house, and while he wa3 taking him info custody, the female rushed into the room and pulled him about in a violent manner, and demanded to see his warrant. The detective succeeded in taking his prisoner. Mr Ward, for the prisoner, stated that she did not interfere with the detective, but merely attempted to prevent her watch being broken in the scuffle. A female witness who was in the house said there was no interference or resistance on tbe part of the prisoner, but she admitted having been out of the room for some time, and she then heard the detective say, "Now do not interfere with me in the discharge of my dut3 f." The Magistrate was of opinion that there had been resistance, although not of a very serious nature. lie would fine the prisoner 20s and costs, or 48 houra' imprisonment. Charge Under the Vagrant Ordinance.—Francis Baynhnm was charged, on the information of detective Farrell, with having no visible lawful means of support. The detective stated that he had known the prisoner for two years, living in a brothel, and doing no work. Detective Rowley corroborated this statement. Mr Ward appeared for the prisoner, and was about to produce evidence that the prisoner had a weekly income, when the Magistrate said there was no necessity to produce evidence. The jact of a man living in <-i brothel was an offence against the laws of God, but not against the laws of man. Prisoner was discharged.

FoncsiNc and Uttering.—John Lloyd was charged with feloniously forging and uttering a cheque for LG 10s, signed "George Harrison," with intent to defraud Thomas Hudson of the same. Thomas Hudson stated : I am proprietor of the Scandinavian Hotel, Maclaggan street. I know the prisoner. He was at my place on the 15th April last, between seven and eight o'clock in the evening, and he asked me to cash a cheque which he showed.me. The cheque produced is the same. It is for £G 103, and is signed "George Harrison." I cashed the cheque, and on Monday morning I paid it into the Bank, but on the following day it was returned to me, with the answer "No account" written on it. Mr Sub-Inspector Morton asked for a remand, in order to bring a •vn'ness from the Dunstan Creek, who c 'd speak as to the forgery. The ] '>ncr said he would plead guilty to 1 charge, but the Magistrate said that t :1 not alter (he usual course of taking

( n the depositions. The prisoner was jc.anded for a week.

OIVIT, CASKS,

William Woodland v. Anderson and Lambert.—Claim of £10 10j, for rent of a piece of Land in l-'illenl fitrcet. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of £8 and costs,

M'Donald and Johnston v. George Hays.—Claim of £7 12s 7d for goods supplied. I'hc debt was admitted, and time asked to pay. An arrangement was made. Judgment by consent for (he plaintiffs with costs. yV. R. Latham v. Henry Jeff:).—Claim of .£lO 15s for three months' ground rent due in advance, ns per agreement. Jt appeared that the defendant had admitted his tenancy by paying rent in advance to the plaintiff for the past two .years. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs. J. A. Adams v. Henry Lewi;.—Claim of £3 7s Cd. The plaintifl'did not appear, and was nonsuited with costs.

W. Hooper v. 11. <;ones. —Claim of £2 11s 10(1. The plaintifl did not appear, and was nonsuited.

J. Brook v. Ca=nir and Barnard.— Claim of £20, being the nmount of a dishonored acceptance. The defence was that the plaintiff had signed a deed of assignment for the sum now claimed. The plaintiff said he brought the case into Court for the purpose of showing that sill the defendants' assets had not been included in their deed. The Magistrate said he had nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Debtors and Creditors Act, and advißcd the plaintiff to seek his remedy in the Supreme Court. Plaintiff nonsuited with costs.

Judgment by default was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases : —Jones and Co. v. Patrick Smith, Xl 48s Cd; Davis v.Louisa White,£3 13a; J. M'Laudress and Co. v. Henry Williams, £1 ; Wm. Woodland v. G. P. Fellows, £1 10s J)d; Henry Steinmitz v. G. P. Fellows, yjl 8s Id.

The following cases were dismissed, in Cons-- Mjeiicc of the non-appearance of the part '.: —Harnctt and Co. v. Robert But tt, Samuel Webb v. John O'Halloran. Samuel Bird v. J6hn O'Hallcran, llobert Sutton v. Abraham Austen.