RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 131, 17 February 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 16th Fbbruaby. (Boforo G. G. FitzGorald, Esq., R.M.)

Lunao?. . — James M'Donald was brought up on this charge, and remanded until Monday, for further medical examination. ABSAUI/T, AND USING THREATENING LANGUAGE. — John Durham was charged with assaulting Oharlos Summers on the 3rd inst. Complainant said that on tho day named, when in tho Europoan Hotol, dofondant caught hold of him by tho throat and shook him. Ho thon said no would tako threo or oven twelve months if ho could but moot the complainant alone in tho bush. Complainant said ho was in bodily fear, and had, therefore, laid tho complaint. James Temploton deposed that ho was a houso paintor, and had scon Durham seize complainant with both hands by tho collar and shako him, and had heard Durham mako uso of threatening and disgusting language Tho defendant snid that ho and complainant had an old griovanco between thorn, and said ho had meroly taken hold of complainant's collar and spoken to him. His Worship bound Durham over to kcop the poaco towards complainant for six month*, himsolf in £80 and two surotios in £25 each.

Civil Oases.

McLean v McLean — An information was laid against the defendant to find sureties to keep the peace Mr Oakes. appoared for Mrs McLoan and stated that his oliont did not press tho information, a doed of separation having boon entered into between tho partios. Gray v Noes— This aotion was adjourned yesterday. Mr O'Loughlin said ho ; would prove that tho bill, whioh had beon accoptod by Sohlutor and drawn and ondorsod by Noes, was not an accommodation bill. Tho plaintiff said that ho had applied to tho defendant for payment of the bill of exchange and that the lattor had agreed to pay, provided the amount of a contra account of L 7 10s were paid, but this the plaintiff had refused to do because there was an error in the contra account, and demanded payment of bill of exchange, proraising to pay defendant's account when corrected. The defendant doposed that Mr Reid, the plaintiff's managing man, had asked him to sign an undertaking, that if Schluter did not pay, defendant would do so ; but this defendant refused to sign- With regard to promising to pay the bill of exchange if his account of L 7 10s were paid, he had never made such a promise, but bad said, that if plaintiff would pay his account, he would pay plaintiff's bill, meaning a contra business bill, and not a bill of exohange. His Worship said that it was clear, legal notioe of the dishonor of .bill of exchange had not been given to the defendant, who was the eudorser, within three days of date of dishonor as required by the Act, and he should therefore give judgment for the defendant.

Pratt v. Garvin and Thomson. — Mr O'Lough lin applied for an adjournment ,of this case until Tuesday next, which was granted.

O'Drisooll and Co., v. Rehherg. — An action to recover L 99 4s 6d for timber supplied. The plaintiff proved tho debt. The defendant asked for time to pay, which plaintiff would not consent to as the account had already been owing ftr some time. Verdict for amount claimed. Soanlou v. Median, Holland, Lewis, Nelson, Ashworth and Burns. — Mr Campbell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr O'Loughlin for defendants. An action to recover amount of wages due. Plaintiff said, that on the 14th of August, the defendants engagod him to work for six weeks at a water raco for L 3 a week and his board. He had done the work required, but never reoeived any wagos during the whole time. By Mr O'Loughlin, The defendant had been assisted by storekeepers, and the men engaged had agreed to wait for their wages until the job was completed. Jamoi Holland,! one of the defendants, deposed that the plaintiff had boon engaged to work until tho race was completod, and had agreed to wait for his wages till tho speculation brought money to tho defendants* By Mr Oampboll — Witneis said that if tho race proved a failure then the mon employed would, novcr bo paid. The men promised never to prois defendants for money bo long as they kept the raco, in thoir possession. Thoir intorest was assigned to sororal storekeepers, but only until such time as tho formor could pay tho domands of the lattor. By Mr O'Loughliu — Dofendamt's intorest in tho race is not absolutely assigned, but is mado over for a timo only, to socure ropaymont of debti. Daniel Paul said ho was a minor, and had agreed to work for defendant's for £3 a vook and board. The defendants had arranged tho mattor of payment to witness's satisfaction. Robert Ashworth being sworn proved tho genuiaonoss ef tho dooumont by which defendants' interest in tho race had been ussignod to soiuo storekeepers. Mr Campbell, in addressing the Bonch, said that tho plaintiff had worked for a specified amount of wages. Ho had had no share in tho speculation, and could not bo oipoctod to work for nothing. His worship romarkod that the assigning the intorest in the raco to tho storekeopors, out from boncath the dofondants* foet tho dofonce that they otherwiso might havo made. Judgment for amount claimed. Skeohan v. Sauio. — Judgment in favour of plaintiff, by consont, Fama v. Moynoll. — Mr O'Loughlin appoared for tho plaintiff, and Mr Oakes for tho dofondant. An action for £46 for board. V. Fama deposed that from tho sth Juno to tho sth November last the dofondant lived at tho Lord Nelson Hotol, of which plaintiff was thon proprietor, and said that tho sum charged to boarders thon was £2 a week. "Ry Mr Oakes : Witness had never engaged dofondaut to aot as barman. Ho was moroly a lodger. Ho had sometimes assisted tho barman, as a favor to tho lattor, but that was all. Ho had novor paid anything for board all that time, oxcopting £2 for one wook in Novomber, when ho had something to do at the Duko of York Hotel. Edwin Austin said ho was in plaintiff's employ as barman during the time that the defendant had lived at tho Lord Nelson Hotel. Witness was the only barman employed at that time, and he and two barmaids did all the work in the way of serving customers . He had never heard plaintiff make any agreement with defendant as to allowing him his board, Dofendant had served in the bar occasionally, but hot as a paid servant. — By Mr Oakes — Defendant had often volunteered to get ,up early and open tho bar,, and had sometimes nerved in it at Light. An account of board due had not at the time been given to defendant, because then he was not in funds. — George Meynell, the defendant, deposed that he was now proprietor of tho Lord Nelson Hotel. Had lived theie when plaintiff was landlord for several months About Juno last plaintiff told him that if he oasis' cd in the bar occasionally, he should not be charged for board . Witness had served very frequently in the bar and in the danoingroom. In November last witness had an interest ■ in the Duke of York Hotel, and during tho first week of his being there ho had gone to the Lord Nelson Hotel for his meals, for which, as he had pot served in the bar that week, tho plaintiff charged him L 2, which he paid. — By Mr O'Loughlin— Witness had paid plaintiff for the board due prior to June, aa he had not then beon employed in the bar. Plaintiff had told me that when I wanted money to ask for it, and he would let me have it. I bad L 5 from him, and repaid L2.— l<\ Smith said he was assayer in tho Bank of New Zealand. Had frequently seen defendant serving behind the bar of the Lord Nelson H-nol between tho months of June and November. Had also seen him attend to oustomers in the danoing-room in tho evening — By Mr O'Looghlin— There were two barmaids employed, but thoy were generally danoing in tho owning. Dafeudant was not «lw»yi in ih« to In to ww^,*^^ Vtm nft ft t4

a merchant. Had scon tho dofondant waiting on customers at tho kord Nelson Hotel, bo' twoen tho months of Juno and Novombcr — Honry Maco, cordial manufacturer, and William Hook, accountant, corroborated tho evidonoo of the two provious witnesses. — M» Oftkes said that thoro could ho no doubt that dofendant has assisted in tho bar for his board. Tho amount of £2 domanded by plaintiff* for board for tho last week of defendant's being in tho houso proved this. — Mr O'Loughlin thought that groat weight should bo attached to tho testimony of Austin, tho barman, as ho > was intimately acquainted with what tho dofendant had done, and why ho had offered his sorvicos, which, according to his cvidenco, had been given gratuitously and as a favor to Austin. Mr Fama had given as a roason for asking for £2 in November that he was in want of money just thon, and know that tho defendant could spare that much on account. His oliont had paid Cameron, tho person who contracted to provide board for tho inmates of tho Lord Nelson Hotel, for defendant's board, and tho loarned counsel thoroforo hoped his Worship would givo a vordicfc in favour of tho . plaintifh Tho Magistrate said that nothing had over been charged tho defendant for lodging, which showed that a distinction had been mado between him and othors who wero treated as lodgers, and he thought there was no doubt that an ongageinont had existed botween the plaintiff and defendant. Judginont for the dofendant, with £3 15s. costs. Thoro wero four caso3 in which tho plaintiffs did not appear. Tho Court thon adjourned until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.