RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 2236, 6 April 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

, - Monbay, April 5, (Before A, Chatham-Strode, Esq., RM.)

.->■■ Drokkfatots;—Tho following : ,i!«wion» were dealt with for drunlcettniesa:— Samuel Stephens was sent to go,ol for a month with hard labour.—Jehu Patersoix. (on bail) was fined 10s, or in defult24 hours in gaol.—Catherine Gray was fined 40a or sent seven days to gaol,-—Daniel Oollins was fined 40s or sent to gaol for a week. - j Assatjlt. —A further charge of having violently assaulted the .apprehending; (XJnßtaWe was brought against the last 'defendant. ■* It appeared that tho accused had' beea t previously brought up« oii«* similar charge, and that from aaeßcapr tipn of him received from Tasmania it apj>eared he had been for years a primmer' in that colony. ~Bl& was, sent to gaolfoi 10 days oh the secoird charge,,. Laucbny.—^Tohn Gat«ly was brought; up on remand, charged with steahng a piece of tarpaulin, the property of M* > Cutten, at Aadersbnte jßay.; Wifliaitt' Lowrie, farm servant to Mr Cutte% .ae*posed that he missed the sheet. He took a sample piece of the tarpa\ilin to thejto^.^ Active, and. afterwards.^ compared tho cloth produced with the piece left behind at Mr Cutyen's, when he found that they corresponded. Mr Edmond., sailmaker, dfeposed {that ho made the tdrpaulia ! for Mr Cutten, in February Hast. It was valued atL7 10s. The piece of tarpaulin:, produced corresponded with the piecfitMfci, at Mr Cutten's. Detective Farrell dja- ! posed that he found the "sheet produced. !in the possession of the prisoner,, near Spring Bank Hotel. The piißoner waß a. conditional pardon.man, from Tasmania, and had been twice convicted of larceny since his arrival in New Zealand. la defence, tho prisoner denied having had th© tarpaul in in his possession at all. Ho was sent to gaol fcr four months, with, hard labour. , : i; -->■* Richard.Patten and Alexander Steel were chargod with attempting to rescue a horse from John Hughen, bailiff^? at? tho Provincial Sale Yards, while k th» discharge of his duty. It s.ppeared that Hughes had taken the horso unde*,war~ rant in the case of M'Taggart v. Xapg, and thati whilst taking the horse from tnt* stall both defendants seized the halterand attempted to take it out of hia hand, and put the horse back into the stable, refusing to let go when requested-. Charles Brown deposed that he assisted Mr Hughes on Saturday last to levy on a horse in* the case mentioned. Lang, thedefendantin the action, pointed out tho horse, and told Hughes to d istrain on it, but when he attempted to do ao the defendants resisted. A constable wae tnen. sent for, and Patten given in charpe. Tho defendants, who pleaded that the horse was the property of Patten, were each fined LlO and costs. CIVIL, CABBS. Neteon and Another v. Brenchley.-—A. claim for wages, was postponed until Monday next. Bradshaw v. Dillon.~A claim of Lsfor money lent.; Mr Stewart appeared for tha plaintiff. Verdici for the amount with. costs. Colliov. Stephens,—No appearance., Dolman «. KeHchor.—No appearance. Lees v. Zerck. —A claim for Ll9 6s on. a dishonoured acceptance, with interest added. Judgment by default with coste. Godeo v. Watt.— No appearance. Eccles v. Henderson.—No appearance. Eccles v. Ellis.—A claim of L 7 5s lid, balance of account for tratchot'B meat supplied by plaintiff to defendant. Judg* ment for plaintiff for amount and costs. M'Oubbin «. Thompson—A claim for LB. Mr J. H. Harris appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilson for tho> defendant. The evidence showed that the plaintiff had purchased a cottage from the defendant, v/bo, at the time of the purchase, represented the property as his own. Afterwards plaintiff received notice of ejectment from Mr Andrew, who turned out the lessee of the hind from the Trustee for educational and religious purposea. By Mr Harris : He had not attempted to remove the cottage after receiving the notice of ejectment. Mr Harris put in the lease from the Trustees to Mr Andrew. Mr Wilson contended that the plaintiff had bought tho cottage and nothing olae. Mr Thompson nevrr had pretended to own tho land. He had sold the cottage, whioh he had power to do, and the proper course for the plaintiff to have adopted was to apply to the lessee foe leave to remove the cottage from _ the land. The defendant deposed that, ha was acting as agent for Mrs Brunton, the owner of the house, and that he isoldit ta the plaintiff, with the distinct understanding that tho title to the land was' questionable. Verdict for plaintiff, foir L 6 Bs, with costs. jKvanß v. Murray.—A claim for Ll2 IQs, ■foir rent of a section of land at Nortnt Harbour. Judgment for plaintiff for ainpunt, witlj costs.: : , Young *. Morison.—A claim for LT for painting and paperhanging a house. Tt appeared that plaintiff, was in tha occupation ■of a house belonging to defendant, and that she ordered, him to paint and paperhang ifc. Ho did so, and gavei.ee In the bill, when she denied over having ordered the work. John Peteraeu corro^borated the statement of the plaintiff, as. to the defendant having ordered him to paint and paperhang the house, which: was much knocked about. The work done to it by the plaintiff was well done. The defendant deposed that she had never giye'ri any such orders as those stated io? have been given^ and that the convert sations referred to were fabrications. Tha ', plaintiff had dore odd jobs of work for her, for which she had always paid him* Judgment for plaintiff for L 7, with costs. ITraser v» Menzies —No appearance of plaintiff. Defendant allowed 8a coatSi