Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

. Tuesday, 25th Sefteiibeb. (Before John Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) • Edmoud and Another v. George Lumb.— This was a judgment summons for Ll 4s, groceries supplied. The plaintiff Edmond stated that, when his firm commenced business, the defendant advised them "not to give credit to any man unless they knew him." The defendant, had said that he waa employed by. the Government, and that, he would " pay the amount at the end of the month."—George Liimb deposed that he had done nothing for months—since his post of revenue officer Svas abolished. He had been promised employment in 'one.office, ■ but. he had applied to so many that he cbuld.1, not say which it was ! H« expected to havegot a billet from the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Donald Reid, or the Hon. Mr M|Lean." Witness had told the plaintiffs that he possessed property worth aboufc L6OO. This had consisted of nine sections at Anderson's Bay, and ten acres and a half at the Halfway Bush, but, "as he did1 not register it, he losfcat."—His Worship said he was afraid^ thafc,' if the amount was not paid, he should be obliged to send the defendant to prison. The case .wfs adjourned till the.26th October, to enable the defendant to pay the debt. Duff y.'»The Corporation of Dunedin.—This was a case in which the plaintiff claimed LSO, damages to:ja- horse through the defendants' alleged Negligence in maintaining a certain highway."'Mr-Lewis appeared for the plaintiff, arid/Mr Sinclair' for. the Corporation. After heariug the evidence, His Worship reserved judgment. '■■ -g ■ -

; PORT CHALMERS. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.}

: Breaches^ of Municipal Bye-Laws.—The charges against D. Law, for permitting his chimney to take fire, It. Bauchop, for neglecting to exhibit a light .at night upon some scaffolding in George street, and Rosa Stanley,, for creating a nuisance oh her premises, came on-for hearing after adjournment, and to allow the Corporation to argue the point raised by the defendants' counsel; Mr Dick, as to the invalidity of the bye-laws, which, having been compiled upon the Ordinance oi IS67J and that Ordinance haying been repealed by the Act of 1876, it followed, of necessity, that the byelaws were thereby abrogated. —Mr Joyce quoted at length if rom* Grant, on Corporations, and contended that, the Corporation haying been empowered by the Legislature to make hye : laws,. such laws held good until expressly repealed by the Corporation; or by Act of Parliament.—Mr Dick argued that the informations were la;d under.the schedule to the statute of 18.67, which the Corporation. had adopted;-and that; when; the' statute was 'repealed'tho schedule was repealed with it. 'He also contended that the saving clause expressly mentioning, " action begun, penalty and liability incurred," prevented _ _ the Corporation from commencing new proceedings.:—His Worship said that he had very serious doubts about.the matter, but that if, assuming Mr Dick was right, he gave judgment for the defendants, it would laave the Corporation of Port Chalmers and others as well in a very awkward predicament. He should, although not quite clear on the point, take his stand upon the saving clause ot the Act IS7G; and relying upon the phrase, " thing: done in it," decide in favour cf the bye laws, living the defendants leave to appeal to the Supreme Court for. a. settlement of the •points raised. The defendants are thii3 respectively dealt with:—Law being fined 2s 6d, and .costs'; Bauchop, 1?, and costs; and Eosa Stanley, 25.6 d, and costs. ; ;

: Wife^ Desertion:—Scott v. Scott. / This case again came on for hearing—Mr Joyce representing the' plaintiff, and Mr Howorth the defendant Excepting the delivery of the judgment, it: was a final heaving, and the facts ofthe' case may be briefly stated thus: Many, year^ ago the plaintiff, was inamed to a irian named Anderson, at.Hobart Town, who, after living with her for some years, left her there and went to Pert Chalmers. She followed him with her two children—a boy and girl—arid, not finding her husband, took up her abode with the defendant, and lived with him five years as his wife. Then the report of Anderson's death reached her, and she married Scott — '■ the ceremony being, performed by the minister of the Congregational Church. Eventually the defendant sent her to Hobart Town on some pretext, and when she returned she found that he was living with her daughCer by the first husband, and had a child by her. Soon afterwards he removed to Wellington with the daughter, leavingplaintiffatPortChalmers. Shethereupon instituted proceedings for maintenance. For the defencej it was stated that the plaintiff's first husband wa3 alive, and hence she was guilty of bigamy, whilst the defendant was not liable for •maintenance. A witness, Edward Bolton, was produced to prove the existence of the first husband Anderson, but his evidence only went to show that he had: met a man named Anderson at Port Chalmers, who told him that he was going to see; Mrs Scott, and hence the inference that he ■was the first husband, to which 'fact Bolton cculd not swear.

His Worship said he would like time to consider, the points raised, iud would deliver judgment at Dunedin on the 3rd proximo.

CIVIL CASES,

Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, was givpn in the following cases :—Charlton v. Cook, Ll ls lid; Cameron v.- Betteridge, L 2 12s; Insley v. Matehett, 1,2165. - .'..-.• Charlton v. Perry.—This was a claim brought to recover: the sum of L 4 4s 3d, said, ta have been incurred by defendant's wife before marriage for board and lodging. It was, however, shown that the young woman was th 6 guest of plaintiff, and that all. that was really owing was 14s, for which judgment was given, with costs. -y y.. .'. ;■

.Insley v. Baird. —A claim to recover L 5 2s, for work and labour done. Adjourned for one week for the production of evidence.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT18770926.2.37

Bibliographic details

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4870, 26 September 1877, Page 5

Word Count
972

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Otago Daily Times, Issue 4870, 26 September 1877, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Otago Daily Times, Issue 4870, 26 September 1877, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert