RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3770, 7 March 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Feiday, 6th March. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., K.M.)

Invbtekate Tipvlers. —Ann Hardy, a haj-.Uucd offender, when''charged with being diunli in Cumberlaud street, said that two fjjvsses M'liieh she had taktn had overpoweied her, but she would never come np ii^ain She was fined 40s ; in default, 14= days' imprisonment. She was further charged \vith being an habitual drunkard, having b<en thrice convicted during the preceding time months. She was eeut>.-nced to the full ttrm of 3 calendar months' hard labour, lv disposing of this charge, His Worship said, addn-ssiflgSub-iuspt'ctorMallai-d; ' fMr

Inspector, it lias been observed that it would bo moro to tho purpose to punish tiiose parties who supply habitual drunkards with drink, than these unfortunates. 1 would like the police to keep a strict look-out whether it is any particular place that supplies them with liquor. There would bo no 1 habitual drunkards if the holders of licenses would refrain from suffering such unfortunate creatures to drink." Honor Bradshaw, against whom there were several^ previous •charges, including ono of manslaughter, pleaded guilty to being disorderly tit 2.45 a.m. that morning. Bailiff Hughes had been awoke with her disturbance, and found her under an apple treo in a neighbour's garden, with a bottle of spirits at her side, and lie took her to tho Police Station. The Bench fined nor 40s, ■with the option of 14 days' imprisonment. Matilda Hancock was similarly dealt with. George Murdoch, who was last convicted in 1871, considered ho had had a good spell, and was also find 403. llobt. Hagan, arrested in Queen street, was fined 20s, with the option of 0 days' imprisonment. Catherine Brown, who had forty-three previous convictions recorded against her, appeared in a tremor, evidently a consequence of excessive drinking, and a penalty of 10s, in default 3 days' in Gaol, was inflicted, upon her. A Game at Euciiuk.—Wm. John Wilson, colt-breaker, and Frank Thomas, seaman, were chargod conjointly with committing a breach of the peace in tho vestibule of the Queen's Theatre, on the previous evening by fighting. Thomas said ho was playing a camo at euchre in tho City Buffet, Wilson snatched^ up a £1 note which ho ran away, with. They were each fined 10s, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. Robbery from a Garden.—John Muir, a "Lilliputian," who was out of sight in tho dock, "was charged on the information of Edward Genever, with stealing a quantity of apples, to the value of Is. It was shown that the midnight depredations of such youngsters in fruit gardens was a constant source of annoyance. -As the boy's father had,promised to. chastise him, he was discharged with a severe caution. Neglected Child.—P. Sullivan, ngud five years, was brought up by Constable M'Kinlay for being a neglected child, the mother being an'inmate of: the Lunatic Asylum. The boy was sent to the Industrial School for a period of seven years, to be .brought up in the Church, of England persuasion. . '■..'. ■ CIVIL CASES. A. Callender v. J. and J. Callender.— Evidence in tliis case, which, was an action for damages through sheep.treapasses.in January and February last, was given in the early part of the week. Judgment was now given for £10 and costs. '■ J. and J. Callender v. A. Callender.—This .was, a cross action heard on Wednesday, in which plaintiffs sought to recover damages for wrongful impounding of sheep, in not .igiving notice of the same in terms cf the Impounding Ordinance. Judgment was given tor defendant, with costs. ':■":. Mr Macassoy, counsel for plaintiffs, gave notice of appeal;/ ,- ; '"> j # 'Wi Andrew, jun. v. R. Rennie.—This was an: action to recover !£ 100,' for breach of agreement in neglecting t > pay royalty on a coal mine. Mr Job'nston appeared for plain- ■ tiff,1 and Mr E. Cook for defendant,; who ; pleaded a general denial. Charles Laverty, ' the* first witness, was attesting witness to the i' signatures .of David Andrew and Robert Kennie on the document produced (a copy of " thTe"lease). Mr Cook raised an objection " that the lease was not stamped. Mr Johnston paid the penalty. Mr Cook raised a further objection, that under the Convey,ancing Ordinance the execution of a deed ; 'must lie testified by one witness. The docu- '"' menthas certainly not been drawnup in an . lawyer's office; His Worship ■ saidthey had been! going in for cheap law. David Andrew, the plaintiff, said the mine was -on -sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; block -VI., East Taieiri, an<T he'was landlord of it. Defendant entered upon the leage in 1871, and according to the agreement",- he was to work it free for three or. six months, aud to '-pay royalty after that.' After 'entering into possession, witness received £3, and subse quently, in May last, £9 18s. This was all ■ he' had 'received, and- defendant told him • that there was no demand for this "coal. He fJilso'said he had soltl his lease to Andrew Pollock, but witness had received no royalty from Pollocks ', Andrew Kerr, coal-miner, •/,of'seven; years' experience at Green Island, said it would be a small average for two or three men. to turn out only two aud a > half tons of coal each froui Rehnie's mine. •The charge at the pit mouth was 9s a ton ' for round coal, and 6s a ton for small. Since , ,May last defendant had not worked.! he mi'ho j. at all.':.' ■' This closed plaintiff's case. Mr .Cook moved a nonsuit. Tho covenant pror duced provided that defendant should effec- : tually work the mine whilst in possession; —It-was not their case that he had worked it ..unreasonably or in au'improper manner, but that he hadnot worked it at all,, He (iMrCook) Submitted that there should have been a . covenant for contifniousworking. MrJohnaton>,having J been -heard in .reply, His Worship said, lie was o.' opinion that there was a case for defendant to'-answer!' <Mr Cook laving stated bis-.case,;ihe called witnesses for the defence.' Robert Rennie, defendant, stated' when heTitook1 tlie "ground he had to .iprpspect .for- a, long time before he found . lc6all*'''Jtwaa'of fßiveh. poor, quality as to bo iunsaleable.' He^'had,'.,hoh\,"discontinued the working for a Ipnger'.period than three days, and;ithere -was i always someone present to •endeavour ito sell it, but he copld**hbt (V.ajpose of 'it^in' any.iyay'. ; TherO;Ayere ten tons in.^the ;yard, which ,?had; been worked, .and hail been lying .-exposed'to the weather,' jforsale.... Through being,tlms exposed it had t*Bo i crumbled as £b become .worthless. Witness -entered into partnership about two yeai-3 ago vwith MrPollodc, intending to prospect for a new seam, and ho had since sold.out to him altogether. Plaintiff told, witness that, he Ididnot care to whomith'e1 mine whs loosed, .isolong.as it was.constantly worked,,and t-he S-royal'ty'was forthcoming. 'Witness fold the .coal at dilleredit prices, 12s a ton being the . lowest pi:iee he received, and heonly employed r-one : inon to work the;mine:' ? iA. Bollock £ur-; ■.-chased the mine f roni'Rennie in May: last, ! and;* excepting' a few interruptions, he had '"TPorked.it regularly, arid-trie I to .sell it. but 'mb'orie would purchase it. -The coal did not ito be of bad quality, but the road to the mine'was-a great objection to penplo (buying it.-■ Witness had* not payed royalty ■■to -Mr Aiictraw, because he had not sold any : pf the coal.l ,;,;.;'•; ii V ■ -.ItI-? ~',■ ] ' i'.g . The Court adjourned for twenty minutes, ;and OU resuming His Wor/hip said, as defen^ dant refused to surrender the lease it wa3 ol> ,"vioas :thnt it must be of value to him, and <ihat the fact of Pollock, not working.tho -mine while in his po session was no 'answer, :as he had an interest in another mine, and it might have been to his advantage to leavo ifcbis.mine unwprked.; -Had it been shown that the mine could not have been worked, but at a loss,; he would'have looked more favouralily on the case. There was some difficulty to arrive at a fair calculation of the •damage sustained, and lie would therefore give judgment for plaintiff for £10, aud costs. Hutton v. Roberts.—Claim of £21, on a promissory note for £10. aud 4.'5 caah lent. "' Mr E. Cook appeared for plaintiff, and Mr M'Kexy defended. A set-off was pleaded to the amount of •££>... Mr. M'Keay objected to the bill of particulars, and an adjournment was granted until Monday next. ALLEGED MALTREATMENT. D. Fisher v.' J. M'Brearty.—This was a suit for tho recovery of trloo, damages sustained through alleged mal-practice. Mr M'Keay stated the case at length, and in his arguments cited Laup]twr y. PkU/Jui, Cannin^lon and Pay, vol. 1, p. 475. He then proceeded to call the following evidence : — Daniel Fisher, the plaintiff, said he kept an accommodation house at Maungatua, and on the 13th of September last ho received information that his son had met with an accident, and faw him lying at Mr Snow's store, and went for Dr M'Brearty, who returned with him, and examined the leg, saying it was broken, and told witness to carry him to his surgery, and afterwards to go to a capenter for a piece of wood three feet long and throe inches broad. The doctor said the wood would do, and bound it along the outside of the kg, afterwards sending him home in a vehicle. Defendant again called ou the following day, and took the bandages off tho lug, which ho applied again, and gave orders to foment the legs with hot clothes. Witnesses wife asked defendant if he would like another person to assist him. He said it was a small affair, and would beTight in six weeks. Witness went to the Taieri, to work at Mr FultonV, and never spoke to defendant after. His son was very useful ;it homo about tho stuhlo, and -wont to school in tho morning, lie had been earning 10s a-wcak and keep, and would soon have earned XI a-week and keep. Ha was now of no service to him, aud if he re-

covered damages, lie would devote it to bringing liitn up to some profession, as he would never be able to do a day's work* By Mr Macnssoy : The present action was brought solely for tho benefit of his son, to compensate him for the injury. Witness was a poor man, but could have paid a medical man if he crime from Dunedin. Ifc was about the middlo of January when he first suspected that his child had not been properly attended, and after he came into Dimetlin and called ou Dr Deck, lie wont to Dr Huline at Dr Deck's request, and also saw Dr Yatea. These three gentlemen were of opinion that nothing could bo done, but witness was still willing to have it broken if lie could get medical men who thought it would be advisable. Ho then went to Dr Bjkewell, and from him to Dr Tnglis. His wife went to Dr Burrows. Witness had every confidence, in Dr M'Brearty, who had been his family attendant for two or three years, and never doubted his ability to treat tho case while ho was attending his son. l>y Mr M'Keay: His son went to Drs Burrows and Bakewoll for the purpose of getting the opinions of medical men. Margaret Fisher said that she asked defendant, the day after the accident, if he would require another doctor to assist him, to which lie replied, " Oh no, it is no use, it is a clean break." He never said that the leg was broken in two places. The splint was wound with a handkerchief until the Tuesday, and afterwards 03 a calico band. When leaving on that day, defendant did not leave'any instructions. Two days after he came and tightened the bandages, and said the boy was getting on beautifully, j About a month after this witness sent for the doctor, as the bandages were loose. This was the day of the Mosgiel Kaees, and the doctor did not come for two days. He attended about twice a week for the first month, and continued to attend him for ten. weeks. The doctor after put him on crutches, and when showed a large lump on the leg, he said it was congealed matter, and that it would require a month to go down. Witness always had confidence in defendant, and followed his instructions. The doctor sent in his account, but never called for payment Daniel Fi«her. jun., described the accident and what Dr M'Brearty had done to him. He was going about on crutches, and could not walk a great distance. ... Dr Hulme, surgeon to the Hospital, described the injury as an angular deformity in tho upper part of the thigh, the lower bone and the upper one being united at an angle. That was in consequence of the muscles having lifted tho lower end of the upper fragment upwards. Assuming that, under the alleged circumstances', the leg of the biy was left for two days, with the splint produced on it, he would not consider it proper treatment. - At half-past five, Mr M'Keay. said he had a number of M'itnesses to examine, and requested an adjournment. The case was adjourned for further hearing until Tuesday.

;oods entered for consumption was as follows: — , ,i' -• I ,':i'.-'. £} i,.'d.: ■■'■ ": ; ■■"' ; ' -£ jtb; d. Jrandy .. ..113 7 3 Cigars .. .. 35 17 G iVhisky .. .. 43 16 0'''.Opium .. .. 48 0 0 3o Colonial .. 02 17 7 Tea .. .. 40 2 6 3eneva .. ..-94 13 9 Sugar. .. ..149 9 0 •turn .. .. 42 15 8 Candles .. .. 14 7 1 iVine .. .. 15 15 2 Drapery.. ..204 11 1 ierosene ..10 0 0 Sundries ..287 6 7 fobacco.. .. 43 15 0 Total „ ..£1200 14 2