RESTDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 538, 22 March 1862, Page 3

RESTDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ih'jr-iut. 13m March, ISJ2. [Befj-.v A. C. Strode, E;-q., R.M.] Vaguascv. — David lord was charged by policeserger.nt Ch.pm a w itU having no •visible or lawful means of -npj •;. Lai'.cj'.v'i ~'AY!'\im Elw.mls and John Rubini-on were inform I oo zi-.".-i z i-.".-i h: Detective Lambert tor having, on t!.e 'Jth n.rtai't. f. loraoiflj stwlen from the cutter " [-'ails"' t»%o pairs of mole trouseis, six Crimean shin.*, two nc-k-tio.s, tvo ihinel blurts, and a quantity of -ji-car;. the property of Josiah De Costa, of Mih'Tiea <. .stort keeper. Mr. lii^j.j -io.- Wei. km applied for a remand for one week, fir <\e presenee^of prosecutor, and f.ttgiidauce of mtuerial wittio^ses. "■% Remaiide 1 accordingly, f )if CIVIL CASKS. N"£F O "ge a.si.l James Miwkay v. Robert, Henderson anc. C). Tk- summon.-, \v.u. answered bv^ie presence of ft .\u: Te:nperly. a member of the dgpsftlant's fi i-m. Heappeaied to plaad pavm silly to the complaint of the protestors, who came into Coiul to leenver a private claim from himself. He admitted the items of the amount lviulere 1 : b.it sail he had executed an assignment of his estate in favor of iris ereditcis. and he u'.de -stood that Mr. Mackay had applied to the e\eeti(A •-,■ for .'ettlement, bat they had refused it. Mr. Patc-u .vas retained oa thu side of the defence, but v,-,<h r- ■>> i t>> hi t-Ao unwell to appear in Court. A meetJi, • :\ -editors was railed for Saturday next, and re'-j <-. -t •• ajught that soiue airangement mieht be made <i. -hap oeca^i )n. Messrs. Cook and Ken/on for tin p" .iniii'is, pieced fi.r imiueliate judgment, and the ( k. t laade an or lev in oug instance, for the payment of tIS. together with cj>k on one account: and for £2 i sterling, with costs on a second. Mi. Teaiperly ;>ra.,e I for time to enable him to meet the judgment : an. 1 his Worship, at first ruled that «.-xecution slu aid be stoid until Monday, extending grace ivnti ! t ; ion. The Ic-'ir-.e i ;«ntL'i len, who appeared for tlio plainthKt'wk . objeAi in to :> ;iy grace been all wed, as the clai- >- in question weie made ou private accounts a.L'jii st the lespondent Terapsrly, who in surreuderii ; his e:-tate, by deed of assignment, had acted as a member of the firm ; witb which the present account had nothing to do. His Worship said that under th°se circumstances, tbe law rnii-5 take its course, and recommended the ! respondent to consult with his legal adviser. DALE V. CROWIIITRST. His Wor.-hip raid that he had very attentively examined int-o the merits of this case, ana he had arrived at the conclusion, that great injustice would be done, as the law stood, were a new trial refused. He-hearing granted accordingly. Alex. Robinson v. John II a j> lev.— This was a remanet from the pre\ ions day, and involved a claim for £5, lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The Court dismissed the ease, and adjudged 16s costs to the witness for his expenses, the money to be paid by four o clock. His Worship observed that he considered this to be a most disgiaceful affair. Friday, March 14th, 1862. [Before A. C. Strode, Esq.. R.M.I Stabbixg Case. — Joseph Wheeldon was brought in handcuiie I ; Mr. Inspector Weldon applied for a remand for <i week as the man Johnstone, who had been, stabbel by the prisoner, was too unwell to 'appear. Rei.ian'l granted accordingly. Several c >uiplamts for Nuisances were disposed of. Alt.egi.d Assault. — John Bouike against Patrick Kerwiu. In tiiis case, Mr. Weldon informed the court, that the prosecutor had lodged a complaint yesterday, against Kerwm for having violently assaulted him, and now he wished the police not to execute the warrant. Greac difficulty had been experienced in finding the defendant, who did not possess any ii.ved place of abode. The case was adjourned until to-itii .vow momii.g. j Nuisance.— Joseph Wilson was informed against by James iWwman, for permitting a public nuisance to exist upua hia premises. Mr l'reiidenjast, ap- j peared tU- liie defendant. The comphhiant said that the it ms nice in question existed on the premises of the Vi-iorian Dining Rooms, in Stafford-street, and that tin. steuch v.as intolerable. The defendant had been cautioned some time ago, but since then, instead of removing the nuisance, he had buried it in the yard, w bich, ja consequence, was in a most filthy condition. Defendant ;— 1 pay 12s. a week to a rnaii to remove everything. Hi* Worship: You ha\i' been warned before. You are fined -JO;, and costs. Defendant : Very well then ; I shall appeal against that decisio i ; ys, 1 will; and to the Supreme Court too I His- Woriiiip : I shall commit you directly, if you are no; quiet. Mr. Prendeigast'(to his cli-nt) : Be quiet, p.iy t!>.e money and go nws.y. Dci'rndant (in atmveviug passion^ : I'll pay the money; 0, ye», Of couwe J wiil. His Worsiiip : fake that mau'uut of court. Upon this, a countable the ilcfendant by tlu* Ijind part of !iw coat coliar and bundled him unceremoniously out of the Court. Wiiliam Dale v. Glorge Oeowhurst.— This was au aJj ju.-md <ase : Thi-, ci.se was not isiw-hk-d with the remotest public interest, and diomis>ed •with costs. M. A. Lee v. SoiostuX.— Thi.s was a plaint to recover the sum of £20. Mr. Kenyon for plaintiff, Mr. Putten for icspondent. Judgment gneu for £10 ss, lid., with costs. (teo. Oooii v. James Henry Pierce.— Judgment for £5 is. Robt. Ei.ms v. Chuistiax Sallen.— Judgment for £iS lv*,. 6. Thos. Gold v. Henry Jones.— Mr. South for the defendaut. A sum of Li Y-U. Gd. had been paid into Court.. A plea of " not indebted "' was recorded as to thereat. J augment for plaintiff: £0" us, together with costs. Geo. llaiuus akd Jo]in Eunx-e v. Hunry Farling. —A claim ior LIT Us. Od. The sum of L 5 10.-. had been paid into Court. Mr Coak for the plaintiff, and Mr iSoath for the defendant. His Worship ordered a buurnons to be i-suedi -sued against a party who had been subpercneti by tbejilaintins, and who was not in attendance. His \Voiihip «as determined that no process of this Court should bu hub at defiance with impunity : and in tliis ease, the offender would be required to" siii.-, v caufej why be should not be fined for contempt. The cafe wa.s a^iiourned to Tuesday next. So appeaka.n'ces. — The undermentioned ca.ses were dismissed, there being no appearance of the parties : Henry Brewer et ors versus J. J. Johusto.ie and oae Irskine. -— • Mub'/rove Wills-, aad James Dickson, versus .\uit".Ua Friond. — Charles White versus (Jeo Hunt. Ad iol;: ei>.— J. S. "\Vilkie v. D. S. Barnes. His lYoreliip uhL that a medical certificate liad b, en put into Cuiirp, setting forth that the defendant was too ! upweil V 3 appear to day : aurl, with consent of the pfaiu'titi, the cUse was adjourned to Tuesday. •' Judgment by Default.— lv re OLirlesM'Gregor, versus Thonus Poole.— There was no appeal ance* of (fits defendant. Sen ice of copy of summons was. proved, a jd judgment entered for the piaintiit in the gum of £'i l^., together with costs by default. Jos, Htohey v. Saul Solomon.— Case dismissed. PJaintili to j.ay costs of the day, amounting to 9s. Joux MOou.uack v, John Bahkes.— This was a claim for 2:3/. 14s. 9M, \c& the gum of 21. lb\s. 9 Ad., paid into court. Plaintiff had been emplojed as a carter by the defendant. When required to take "the oath, tbe pla.n iff began laiyhinsf, upon which his "Worshi]) tol I him that if he did not mind what he was about, be would make him laugh on the other side of his mouth, lie did not come into Court to behave tnat way. The man was then sworn, and gave his evidence. He was very l.imbling and vague in his testimony, which thieatened upon cro«b examination to be interminable. Judgment for plaii.iift in 27. lg s g^d, whicii had been paid into Court. Dismissed.— ln re Beard ;md Cooper, Butchers v Caft. Rolls, of the "Lady Bird." There was no appearance of either party, and the case was struck out. John Wkiue v. Robert Cooper, and John CuxhinohaAi.—The busine*o of ihe Court was delated for a few inomeiits by the abaenceof Mr. Prcndergast,who was retaine 1 for the plaintiff. Mr. Cojk attended for the defendants. M>\ Pre:idergast having put in an appeariLiice, explained the peculiarity of the case to be, that, it was a partnership fe-ansaction, and he was Opposed t) dispute tho jurisdiction of the lleaident Magistrate's Court to decide disputed claims bet .veen partners. H.is, V,'orship said, ho had power to deliver judglaeut on all ea.<.es accoidinfc to equity and gocd conscience. IliI"- Court ib a Court of conscience. Evidence was taken , The plaintiff v ent for the recovery of 61. tor passage money from Gee-long to Otago per ship Hei»ty besides 12 days labor, at 11. per dien. making a toal ot M. Judgment went with the plaintiff for ]8/., toother w ith cost^. James Miles Jenkins againt Daniel Saturday, 15th March, 1862. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., X M.) Deonk.— William Kean, charged with', Irunkenness, but out on bail in a sum of £2 10, , S fin"l 10s., wsthw s th an oider that the balance should revert to tne poor-D'"'X. CosTEMir.-WiUiam Kear wa. placed at the bar, to shew uiutvhy he should nos b3b 3 fined for nclecting to put in his appearance to a subpoena, as a witness in the case of Harris and Bance versus Farley Defendant said he was out all day yesterday, ami could not attend the Court, having been engaged with a gentlemiu at North-East Valley, and hi did not receive the subpoena until the evening. His Vvor&hip understood that theWbpcena had been served on the previous day, namely) 13th inst. defendant replied, that the subpeena had been handed to another party on the premises, which party had neglected to give it to him. His Vt'orohip enquired who had served the process, and was informed that the plaintiff liad served it personally. His Wortliip said that he was determined, in future, to enforce the process of the Court, because negligence on the side of witnessas subocenaed to appear, occasioned great inconvenience to professional

< gentlemen and to suitors, lie would receive what i the dffi.-iidant said this time, but he -le-aied to ™ivo I variung ia gm.-itter, and for puhli" infi.rmati'in. his Wors%,|e.rl aloud the -iih clause of the liesi 'c >t MagLstctfMs A<-t, 'jij. uhevby c.c.-» peison convicted of eofiieinnf, in a similar way, is Fable to a pena'ty of 10/ ,or to impi-i Minnu-nt f>r■> t not exeeedfyg fom tee.i dv.s. The rlefe u!a t \.<is t''2u can-j-tunned Jo 1 c )a-ese it ir. C > .ft, ;>t t le\.?. o e'nek, ia tiie ' forehOOii of i'upulay next, (to-ii.oriuv .) ASBAPJ.T. — Patiick Kinvin aiipeare i to answer the information of John Unite , charging hua \vith an assault on the 12t.1i ifaich in--t. "Defendant contest el to the assault, althuu«rh he : Btii(\ be knew notliimr aboat It until his wife'mentioned th<> afniir to him the tuoiulng following. Fined 20,. and ca-.ts. Monday, 17th March. , [Befuio A. O.'srauUE, Jv*i , P.M.] • Dri'.vki:nnk k s. — The undermentioned persons were fined 205., or in default, committed to gaol for fortyI eielit hours. John Phillips. Samuel King, Henry j Xeeion, Thomas Mackay, Benjamin West. Manraret | Swords, John Graves," Hannah Bi.teken, James (irant, Robert Thomas. .Fuhn .Mooie. John Connor, Martin IJuin.s, George Uiclidale, George Alexander. DBSorKE Ij.vNcr.VßK. — Mnriraret S.vords was al?o charged with having used unlawful and obsa'ne language on the lith iust. The bench fined her i-i the further sum of 20-s. and costs, or, in default, committed her to f-.-iol for the term of throe day;. Jaiues (irant, who had been fined 20s for di-unken-ness, v.;>.s i barbed v ith ba'. inn used ob.seene lantiuauj on the ldth inst . (Sundayt, for this conduct ; he wa> fined additional ;">s. and cvts. DisTuiinivu Tiic rn.vcK.— Thomas Ourrey v.i.s charcel with having endeavot-ed t> provoke a l^e-ieh of the peace by siu'iiiic out "Joe. ' and ii.eitiiiL; -\ mob to rescue i jirisi ncr from tbe custouy of the polite. The defendant v.w-, fined lUs. an I e->st«.' Oi'sC':\!: JjAS'ii'Af.f. — (Jeorce ICeeai'in, ci'ivicted of having titteiod (.bsceric aad piofane language, on the KJtli inst., wis fined »s. and co-t>. Im>::ck\cv. — Mkliael Kenne'l.ty, for offending apaiist decency in Pilnces-street, on the loth iust.. was lineil 10s;. and costs. Stj:au.\<! Timber. — Jaine.s 'jearman-nas informed against for stealing a piece of timber \alued at 2s. (.id., the property of James, ltattray, of thelirm oi Dulgety, Rattray & Co. The men pleaded not guilty. The ■watchman to the firm in question stated that, on Saturday night last, the lath instant, about half past ten o'clock, he saw the piisoner pick up the piece of timber and walk away with it in tiie diicction of hin tent in "Walker-street. Sentence :— seven <la\'s imprisonment, uith hard labor, within thewalls of H.M. common gaol. Doujlas v. Davis.— This v/as an information laid by James P. Douglas against John Davis, master of the " l'llha Goddard," for a!le fc 'ed damages .sustained, it was understood, by collision. Tlieie was no appeaiance of the defendant. Mr. Prendergast, appeared for the plaiutiit". Ths Court pave judgment for the plaintiff by default, and a winded £20 dania^as. T here were two or three other cases, but utterly devoid of any public interest. Tuesday, 18th Mjircii, 1862. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 11.M.) Drunk. — The undermentioned partks were fined 20s, or, in default, were committed to gaol for 4S hours : — Thomas Gray, William Cuthbert, Joseph Burn*. Assault.— Patiick Duke Mas elu>rgcd by John Bent ivith having assaulted him on tiie pi e\ious evening. Thib caso arose out of the intrusion of the w ent to the place, and as soon a» he entered it, he was knocked down by the prisoner. In his defence, the prisoner said that the wife of the prosecutor had in the hist instance, assaulted him with a buttle. Constable K\nu c tited that when about thirty yards on this side of Captain Caruill's house, he heard ciies of " Minder,"' and traced the sounds to a tent which he was told the prisoner baa bioken into. He resisted the policeman in the cxc ration of his duty, and was \ery violent when taken into custody. The Bench fined tiic prisoner L'J and costs ; or, in default of payment, committed him to gaol for the teun of 14 da}s hard labor. There was another information against tbe prisoner chaiging him witli h«un<? assaulted constable Hyan, when in the execution of his duty, The case "was not pressed. Illegal Occupation.— Thomas Kean Weldon, inspector of police, informed against Sarah Neville, c hailing her with having erected a ttnt on Crow v Lands contrary to tbe 29th section of the Crown Lamb Ordinance. Mr Newman stated that the tent had been removed since the summons \\;is solved. The Bench obsened that was all that was required, and the defendant was discharged with a caution not to gi\e any further trouble. — Another case against one Henry John Smith, charging him vith unlawful occupation of the waste lands uf"tho Cio*vn, was adjoin ned for a v.cek, to gi\e time to the defendant to make bh arr.-.ngements. there .ipueaiing to be a quantityof tiiaber piled upon the "round. Nuisances.— Moses A. Lee was charged with permitting a nuisance to exist en bis premises. The Uench adjourned the cavj until Friday, to aflord time to the defendant to abats the nuisance. Chailes 11. Walker was charged with having a nuisance on his pieinises, situated in Fraievickstreet. The defendant said he had only returned from the country last Saturday, and had in the meanwhile made auvingements for the lemoval of Ihe dirt. He was discharged with a caution to have the nuisance removed by to-morrow. — A similar case against George Cook was adjourned until Friday next. Allkged Furious Driving. —Police Sergeant Parkins m charged Chailes Ferguson, a coach driver, with cantering through the public streets. The information was dismissed. Deserting a Horse.— Robert Livingstone was charged by Constable Forster with Inn nig, on tho 13th March instant, deserted his hor.se and vehicle in Great King street, contraiy to the 20th section of the Constabulary Force Ordinance. He wa.s fined 10s. and costs. Strayed llokst.s. — The undermentioned persons were fined os. each, with costs, for peimitting their horses to stray within the limits of the town boundary :— William Wynne, David Mackenzie, George Eldersliaw, William Parker, John Civil, and A. 13. Smith. A Strvy Cow. — Thomas Ayres was charged with permitunir bis cow to wander about the streets Defendant —My cow got out, your worship. His Woiship— Clot out. yes ! I never knew a "caw to get out. This i- the second case of a simile r kind against you, and I understand that your cow is a dreadful nuisan. cto people 1 ; a most pirfect nuisance : a dicadfni nuisance. She doea constant damage. You are fined 10s. and costs ; aud, I tell you that if you come here ajiin the fine will be £10. Of course it must be a veiy extreme case whea that tine is- imposed, but you are getting towards that, certainly, by permitting the animal to stray, when you know perfectly well that she is a perfect nuisance _ Whj do you allow it to go at large so I Do you think that people's gardens are to be damaged because of your worthless, cjw ] It is ridiculous. Ousrßucri.N-G thi; Whauk.— A person named Barnett was charged by John Arthur Jenkinsou with assaulting him on the 15th inst. upon the Dunedin wharf, contrary to the 29th clause of the lnrbjr Regulations. The Bench dism>s s eJ the case in consequence of tbe defendant being onh a recent airival, and he would roeei\e the benefit of a doubt as to whether he weie rn-qnainteJ with tiie load jetty regulations Defendant to pay costs, amounting to l'2s. ckl. Harrison v. Bunci:.— ln this case George Harrison was plaintiff, ;md John 13unce defendant. The particulars were utterly devoid of public interest, and terminated in a judgment for the plaintiff for LIG 10^., together with costs. There were a few other cases instituted for the recovery of small debts, but of importance only to the litigants concerned. Wkdxesdav, 19th March, 1862. (Before A. C. Strode, Em\., R.M.) Drcxkes ness.— The undermentioned persons were fined SOs, or, ia default of payment, weie committed to craol for ( 4S hours. John Johnston (out on bail in a d< posit of £$), George Johnston, Joseph Bull, and J nue.sMalioney, Indkcenmjy.— John Wooih appeared to answer the information of poliee^sergeant Chapman, charging him \yith nn aot of this nature, committed by him in a public tboi-otiplifare yesterday evening. During the hearing of evidence,* hU Worship took occasion to remark that the Town Board ought to erect suitable places ior publie 1 convenience. The defendant v. as fined os and costs. Stealing Brbau.— Geo. Johnston was "charped, on tbe infotmation of Moses A. Lee, of the United States Hotel, with having, on the afternoon of the 18th March inst., felono iislv stolen from the premises in question, situated in 'Walker street, a quantity of bread, valued at (is lOd. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he was in liquor at t lie time. Martin Jordan sworn deposed, that he noticed the I prisoner on tbe previous* evening, standing upon tiie steps leading up to the bar, and" lie asked him wlfat he was doing there, as it was a public thorougiffiire. 1 he. man replied that he was waiting to see some One. Upon this the \vitness told him to go into the dining room. He next saw lum about a quarter to eight o'clock, when he (witness) was in the bar, and the ostler made, n report j that some _ one had been stealing the bread-. In a short time afterwards, the prisoner crossed over from the opposite side of the street, his clothing being marked with flour, and as soon as he approached, the ostler said to witness " This is the man !" He then dropped a loaf of bread on the ground. Witness went up to him and said:—" What did you steal the bread for I Had you wanted a meal you could have had it, or a bed either, and if you had only said that you had no money aud were hungry, I would

have Riven yon sometime." After savin-: this to the prisoner, witness Mem, up-stairs to iiin sleeping I apartment, but he hurt not been there lomj hefoie he 1 vas told that the pr.suner had again taken Lieadicv.-ay. Up ,n this. In weut duwu M.urs, and found the man h id -t-dci thive 1 n-.<--.n -.<--. IKs W.usliip , commer^ea on ihw re pel i',, on i.f the .irtxuu 1 , and seni teiu-el the pii^'ii'er ti> hard l;ui ir fi-i o c moi'tii. i Ni, T r«A\'o::.— Flu' .-.is'a am.L Chule^ R. \\':dker j icmaidod iroi.i the piu\,i H i-. day Was diyui-s-c 1 ; the ! defendant putting ii> no appcr'i.ue, aid die p^o.secutor repiesuiLin,; ili.it the nuisun-c liad abated. Assault. — An information invoking a eharqe of this i,au>re, against one Siuitli, at the instigation of a haii-divb e.\ wlios-s -.la-no ua inauililiie, was di.v misred. there bung n.> appearance of either pa-ty, after the ca^e had heea called three times by the crier. The Court rose at a quarter past eleven o'clock. -<S» . RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FORT CHALMERS. (Before Captain Bnldwin, R.M., and Captain Thi'iiuon, J.P.) Friday, March ]4. At tiii.s Court, on Friday. Henry Thomson was char-red. <iv the information of the police, with throwing the ciiiwues if ten sheep upon a public stieet in R>rt Chahneis, contiary to the Con-tabular,, Toiue Ordinance, an 1 also with drowning t»vo sheep n; the hit'-hor of Ofiijo, eontiary to the :20th section of the Ilai-b >r Regulation 1 -. Having j.le.t led guilty, he was fined ss. for the first oifeive, and for the second offence a fire of £'1 10s. v,o~, imposed, ht-ini; as for I e-teh sheep, awl til for the day ili^y reu.ainsd floati, li; in the haibou>\ it being pro\ided h.. the Ordinance, that any peisen (inm'iiii'g Pii ttiiiiu.il, ur throwing a dead Mii.asil into the harbour, or below hi ;h_ water mark, shall lv li d>le to a penalty n-.t e\- | ceediTiic £">, and to an ,<■! hti #nai pejj.-.hj -»f £1 per cliiv for each diy the aniiu.ii lema'u^ in the water or unbiuicd above tide mark, the w hole pei-.ilty not to exceed I/JO. G. Kinm-ton, Shipping Agent, was sm d for the deli-, cry of two boats, the pioperty of James Turnbuil. The plaintiff was absent, and Mr. Khigsto'i asked for a remand till he should appear, stating that he had ensued the boats in <p:e-ition for three months, but there being only evidence of a month's engagement, amlTiunbull being repiesentjd by A; ( air 15; own. as his authorised agent, the Bench gave decision for the plaintiff. James Galbraith was Mied by John Smith for fhe weeks' waces, as a tempemn —rv.int in the Port Chalmers Ho.el. Mr. Ualbraith's statcinent that Smith had niQivly doac a little woik abjiit the house a -hort time for hi.s f.,id, ai,- 1 the c\idu.u; beini: in favour of this statement, the pi.-'lntitl' was noa-buited. llomlay. M.uch 17. (Befoie E. Musgiwe, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT ON BOARP TIIE " L.VUY YoUXO." Alonzo Merchant and Plenry Wilson, beanu-n, were charged with assaullinf; James Coinva;-, and cieating a dihturbanee on boird the «hip " L uly Youn^.'" on Sainrday last. The cue a-ain-t Mci chant \\a-,pro\e I, and he wa-* fined 10s. ; the other - asp \wu dismissed. CoMAiirtAL of Cai'T.u:* op "Lady Yorsu'" for Contempt. — In connction with the above ra^p, a clnrcie aro«s a-aintt Wil'iain Morri^o.i. master of the " Lady Youn^." After the decision of the Eenph ha.i 'beon c;i\en. the master of the " Lady Younj;" expressed liu.i>elf disiatisiiel witlithe jmnia'iiueiit .t. too (cr.iont for th" natu;erf the charge prefer; ed, and. notv/itliatanding --the willingness of the ma'tistnt" to h.ear any iuither charge, made nae of uiwespeeifiil language, ioi- wliich the Magistrate committed him for 24 hours, as guilty of contempt of unut. Wednesday, Maich 19. At this court to day, T. A. Mansford, l^q., the newly elojte 1 Kc-i le:it Ma-ktrate toe Poi-t Cluimei-j, was present but did not take iiis seat, on the Bench. Mu'.fcra\e, lt.A[., dispo^in- of the fe.v cages' brought up. Bkkach ofllvrhou lleuui.atioxs.— Hem y Priest, master of the schooner " De'ianoe,'" v,n< charged on the iiiforniation of Afr. Joyce, of tho Wutev Police, with unlawfully removing his ves»'l from. her anchorage on Sunday 1a.4, and v.a^ fined 10s, and c^t:,. _ William Murray, master of the '• (fonii" was eiiarged with unlawfully pptmittin» to be thrown overboard hi, vessel a «{uantity of rubbish, coiui-stnia; of some empty luurels and. s'tmw. The steward of" tho vessel appeared icr tl.o Caiitiiin. and a Imitted the fault, l«tit pleaded i}riiorance of tlie reKuliitioiio, and was fi jed 20-,. and easts. Tin: DrsTUPBANcK nx boakd the "Lady Yocno."— WiMiam Hail, carpenter on board the ship " Yonnjr Amrrica," was pharucd with unlawfully and wilfully creating a dNtui banco on board the ship " Lady Young-. 1 ' The inforsnation was laid by Cant. JMonLwu, of the " Lady Ynuua-," but he did not ap[)Air7 and Mr. Cook, solicitor, asked for an adjournment of the case until the captain should be ahle to bep'-esent, as be had that mwninjr been unavoidably detained in town. Mr. ( 'ook also applied for the issue ofa warrant against AUm/a .Moivhaut, sr-cond mate of the " Younjy America, 1 ' and Henry Wilson, fourth mate of tlie same vessel, who had been pnvioinly brought up in conne. tion with the same cave on the 17th instant. Both applications were granted by Hip Bench, wanant.s being- issued fin* the apprehoiisiou of Merchant and Wilson, whom the police were unable to discover either on shore or amon-v the shipping • audintliP case of Hall, adjourned, .Mr. Cook amrmied the information from the oiiginal, and laid it under the Merchant Seaman's Act, the fresh rhar»e bein«oue of '• unlawfully aud with force hinilcriajr Alexantler Mulliii, seaman on Iward the ' Lady Youn<>- ' from working at and exercising hU lawful businesfu'r occupation." TUAPEKA POLICE COURT. EXAMINATION OF THE FIVE BUSHRANGERS. (Befoie Major Choker, R.M.) John Russell, alias- " Spiatty,"' and J. Dalies, who had been remanded from the previous day an a charge of highway robbery under arms, were aj&iu brought up and their case ljouc into. William LevUey stateii he was a miner working at Gabriel's. That on Saturday ni^ht last lie was at Wetherston'.s, and staid for the night ai Mr. Alexander's tent. ■ He awoke during tlie night, and got up to get a drink. On going outside, D.ivies. whom he now recognised, came up to him and said, " What do you want, mate ?"' He leplied he wanted a drink, when Davie» said, " I'll h hov. a first rate waterhole " Went with him for a few yards, when I was spued hy some one trom behind, struck several times ami thrown down. He struggled, and Mr Alexander came out and ran towards him. When the) saw Alexander coming Davies said to Unwell, " Hayeyou got it, Jjiek'" and he said, "Yes." They then got up and ran iwav for a short distance, wlien Rus-ell turned round "and called out, Ir you come any further I will "ive you the contents of this," and mnaediately iX s i, ot was fired. The ball knocked up (he eirth" between him and Alexander. Hi* moiiaj c ,i-i-tel of 3L5 notes, 11 LI notes, and a sovereign, in .. chamois leatuer purse, lioth his poukels were cut a. Any When the prisoner Russell ian a-.vay, witness saw h's hat tall off. He afterwards pieke lup the hat now produce 1 near where he was i-fc-iek up. He gave it to Air. Alexander, aud gave infonuitiou. to the police at nee. Cro.'j,-examiuelby "Spratty": Am quite sure 1 never toll any one that tuo \.oiuen robbed me \N as not drunk at the time ; might have had a glass Am confident you are the man that struck me, and cut oil m\ pockets. A whole stiing of questions wore then put by the prisoner, but they were tritiinf; and inelevant. " J. Alexander stated that the .prosecutor Levisey came t . hi.-, pW-e o.i ri iturday night, an I aaked for a be 1 ToM him he could hue one. Staid with him tor the night. Was awoke by lieaun^ Levisey go out Heard mm til king to some oae outride, and shortly arterwards heard a gurgling noise as if some one was drowning. Ran out, and uuv that two men had Leys&oy on tl^e ground. Called out, when they got up and ran olh Alale towards where Levisey was lyin.?\ Saw one of the men jump into th,e creek, and whOe there iiie a .shot at him. Tha ball knocked the eartn over liis f«>t. Recognised the prisoner Davies as having come to his tent on Saturday and asking him for a drink, Got the hat produced fiuin Lovisey, and gava it to_ Sergeant liracken. This witness was crows-examined with considerable skill by Rpratty, but notliin^ new was elicited. Hugh Bracken stated he was a Sergeant of Police. That in consequence of information received, he, lnompany with Sergeant Trimbill and Detective Johnson went to the tent occupied by the prisoners. On seeing him come up they all rushed out of the tent and ran off. Pursued them, arid arrested Russell Recognised the hat as having been worn by Russell. Raw it on him a day or two previous to the robbery', was certain it was the same hat, because it has two holes cut in it, and was .somewhat peculiar in appearance. Afterwards arrested Davies on the road to Waitahuua. After some cross-firing between the Seargeant and Russell, who was as cool and nonchalant as if he had only been engaged in innocent pastime, both prisoners were committed to take their trial at Dunedin. Thomas Hannah, alias Kelly, and Richard Hill, tdifis Burgess, were charged with shooting at Sergeant Trimbill with intent to kill. They pleaded not guilty. The evidence, which was of a formal character, was entirely conclusive, and they were committed for trial. A further charge was preferred against them for having stolen a double-barrelled gun from James Unthy, When they were arrested they stated the gun belonged to them, but aa Unthy appeared in Court, and positively swore the gun was his, and had been stolen f7om him, they wore also committed on this charge . T. Simmons was again brought tip on the charge of having committed an unnatural offeuce. Further evidence was adduced, and the prisoner committed for trial.

DISTRICT COURT. Suturda\, l.'th Miiu'l,. 18C2. (Before Jol.a ij\de liatrij. 3sq.) This court opened as 20 minute, b fore 12 o'clock. Joni:s, Bum ah> (Jo. v. IH.s-- s.— His Honor rave judtruieiit in iliiz o.i c r.- {',•!!-,■. •>.— TVs, suit of .1!'.«-,1 •>!'.« -, Uiul .i !•' ' '<> a_v\i--c, Kdl i. hmks, appears to ha\e booi. b.'M'.'.il b\ ilnj p!ai ilti", i,,i (ho rueowiy of Lol. thac beii:» Un? aiwu;t,,f a ciuq.-e Ir, 'tiu> defendant to the plain ( i .v. an.l ••'"to-.-u -i K.iishonoie 1 by him. Th\< is the -,ihii l\.v : and i-.i the partiiMih'i.s of ilouund lefeivnce i , u,i in idj Ij oiw Um.ikadiou mit ot which the rh'in .in c'.ir ha\ • arise i. 15v the nature of the ileteniv. it apjv.i'h that the van*,:> '•■ tioi oiyinated ia iliu purchase of ;i horse from tlie plaintitts In' the defendant, an 1 that liii, hm\se was wananM by the plaintiff t) the ddeiriant as staunch in li.iniess, and that it was s >H • übjcvt to a re {rial of the h inc. That the tiial of the horse \\n« refund, and th.it it wes so vicious n* 10 bj quite impracticable in harness : that it was leiuincd liv ibe defendant to the plaintiffs las not aii.iwerimj the warranty given) by whom it was resold. The pa in tiffs ttatothata warranty was gi\eu. an! tliuy a Unit, aKo. th.it they fluted they would allow a fair trial : they state further that the horee did autuall.v and in' fact answer to the warranty triven that he wa-, staunch in lianio-^. V.'ith rojeard to h\>, q-iiotnew, Hiat appeals not to liave been iyuaiiuituwl, am! therefore, they hoid that thry arc not ve->p<.UMbii' for any tail ii i-f as to die iior-.-'s fjiii-'fnoss. A who h.ul known tlie hoise in Melbourne, and Otauo, had deposed that he knew tiie horse well, an-1 that it was yoo'i in h.u-jiess. This <\idei!ce \ia> siif-portcd by one Robert El.is, \\\w appeals to li:no Inn ! the horso, and who state- tl. at he v <•> not \ery quiet, but was staunch jjicvimt jv->»ih. . His Honor nori.-.d that the !rariH'<«s?"itor !"•• $m> (ie:'endant leiicd parti-! eularly oiiiYie far I t...tr the trial of the hoi-se was ictus.".!. He mil not think that was material, a* the other eoimt in th - plea \\ as to tin' eft' rt that the hor-o did nor answer to il.e w.nra'ity; bcc.uisc, although the trial which is said to have been refused, was e to .sonic exftut iclt!>.«:!, we have it in evidence t'.ut the hoise d;d answer to the waianty siven. Now the only evidence on that point is the "testimony of Oiekson and Eiiis, winch goes fo pro.o thatth" hor-e did not answer the warranty ghen. There appears to have been a eum-nt report in the yard, at tlie time, that the horst* w;n a vicious hoise, and tiiat he was not t?ood in harness. One wilness named WiKon, saw sonic persons aftci wards attcmptiim- to harness htm, ami they could not do so. With regard to the refusal of the trial, his Honor \v.i>- ofopinionth.it very little stress might he laid on th.it point, for it is not quite clear that the trial w.'^s jvl"n«cd or not, hut seeing- that the defendant had the hone in his possession, he certainly had the opportunity to give him a fair trial ; -.1 it appears, he did not do, but placed the horse in w i hands of a lhery stable keeper, (Mr. Fomstcr) with whom it remained for some days It appears, then, that the defendant not likni«- his bargain, sent ;; note an.l stopped payment a 7 the bank, and by the contract of sa'.e, the' Court did not hold that the plaintiffs were bound to take th» hor*t: back, if returned, because the Court contended that the horse answered the warranty at the time of sale • but having taken the horoe b.ie'k.*an I having tik-d to seli it, the piaititifi'S \\erc cieaily responsible to the defendants for tlie price of the horse, which according- to the plaintiff Jones, i; :]-,/. That must be taken to iic t!u value of the hoise. at tie time tiic lior.se came into Joue-V has .Is, and not the price that it would ultimate)} realise. His Honor did not think that the piaintilPq had any claim to demand iio'ii the defendant any expenses, for it was olonrlv a voluntary act on he part of the phviuihV, taking p (session oi" the hor.-e. His Horn).- then <rave jiidgm'-nt : i —Under the circumstance s >f the c:iso it a])]7e-irs to me, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in the sum of 51/, being: the price of flip horse, as originally sold to him, and that the defend u.ts are indebted to the piiiintiifs in the sum of ,l')l. less a commission of 5 jicr cent., to which the plaintiff- would have been entitled, if they had s.o!d the horse at the time The amount then will be, 30/. ns. taken from ."jl/., lpnvinsr tiie sum of 17/. 145,, and for this amouut jud-Tneiil is given, witli costs. ° Im ur BiiAtD vR. B. Maiitis t t (Jo — His Honor dtl vered judgment as follows :— ln this ease the plaintiff claim* fium the defendants the sum of L 3.1 10s as the \alueof a quantify of timbor, placed in their hands for sale on plaintilfs account, but in respect of _ which no accouat sales hay? be3ii renJered. Tlu defendant-, allege that no such delivery of tlie tnnberuas ace.ii>ted by them, ih would place them in i\ position of accountability for any portion of it not actually sold by them, and tl.it account sales have been rendered b> them to the plaintiff of all the timl.er so s>ld. By. • w! .muff's evidence it appears that dclncn of iV. ■ ".,'il)cr «as accepted b\ one of the defend Hits, und w.u, acU'iiMy ta'cen b\ ojie i-t their servants; and, one of the' defendants, in his evidence admit* that he t >ld the plaintiff that he had better lea\e the timber in hi; hands for sale, -md thai he would do the best he euilil with it. It must therefore be held that delivery of the timber was given to the defendants, and accepted by them, anil that .siicha delivery imi.st constitute a liability on the part of the defendants to account to the plaintiff for the goods so delivered, or for the proceeds thereof when It further appears in evidence that sometime after the de-livery oi the timber to the defendants, a consiileiable quantity amounting to about 1100 feet was missing, and that defendants gave notice to theplaintifl that he had better see to the remainder. Thir,, it appears, the deftndant, to some extent, did, for we find that he collected .some parts of the timber, which were scattered about, and made a measurement of the \\ hole. Taking these acts, of the plaintiff in connection with the notice before alluded to, it will, I think, be iair to conclude that he then took smh a r j -delivery of the timber then remaining, as would l tie is-e the defendants from any further liability in rosp^t t'» it. For tlie value of the 1100 feet of timber, previously lost, the defendants ate, however, J think, clearly liable. He (plaintiff) cm, therefore, take pajment for Ll) 7h the price of 1100 feet of timber at 17s, per 100 feet ; that price appearing from the e\ideace to hav c been, at the wug, about the market \aiueof the timber. Costs will follow the judgment.