RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 136, 23 February 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TntmsDAY, 22nd Februaby.

(Beforo O-. G. FitzGorald, Esq., R.M.)

Lunaov.— Daniel Ooonoy was brought up, charged with being of unsound mind. 'Tho landlord of tho Havp of Erin llotol doposod, that tho prisoner came to his houso lnsi night and asked for a bed. Witness had hoard that Cooney had boon brought up for lunacy and refused liis request, but on Ooonoy asking again to bo allowed to Bleep there witnoss told him he might sloop in tho dining-room. On going into tho room tho prisoner rofuscd to go to bod, and insisted on keoping a candle burning. Witness told him ho should not have- a light, and then Coonoy said ho would havo.ono in spite of him. A constablo proved that ho had bo-n told thai Ooonoy was bohaving obstreperously at the Harp of Erin hotel, and said ho had gone there and tried td induco him to go to bed, but Ooonoy said ho would have a light, as ho wanted it for a particular purpose Dr. Ryloy said that ho had examined the prisoner, who had spoken quite rationally, but still ho might bo insane. -Witnoss said that ho would liko Ooonoy to bo kept in sonio place more suitablo for lunatics than tho camp. Romandod till tho 26th for modicol examination.

Damages.— Wilful destruction of property of the value of Llo.— John Welsh, George Murphy, and Richard Ryan were brought up oharged with this offence. Mr O'Loughlin appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Oakes for Ryan and Murphy. Charles Klois, deposed that he was landlord of the Teremakau Hotel! The prisoners were at his hotel on the evening of the 20th instant, vhen they called for two bottleß of portßr. Witness asked for payment, aud Welsh said that witness was in a great hurry for the money. Murphy said he would not pay at all. Throe prisoners then went outside and commenced to fight. Witness followed thbm and tried to scpnr&te them, when Murpby caught hold of him round tho ncok and threw him down, and some of tho others punched him. Murphy and Ryan then wont in behind the bar and smashed tho bottles of liquor on the shelves, doing damag* to the amount of Lll 18s. Ryw weafc up to witn»& and offered to pay for tho two liottUs of porter which had b»»a

ordered. — Cross-examined by Mr Oakes- Tho houfio was full of people at tho time of tho row. The three pvisonoru were nearly drunk. Witness (lid not know if Ryan struck him. but ho caught hold of him by tho back of (ho neok. Saw Murphy break several bottles, but did not Beo Ryan break any. Thorowore two other men mixed up in the row. By Welsh — Witness did not sco this prisoner break anything. Daniel Bramton, said ho had boon a cook at Mr Klois' but had given up his situation on tho day of the row. Saw Murphy and two others striko Kleis, who was on the ground, and Murphy afterwards broko a bottle of portor ovor his head. Murphy then cleared the shelves in the bar and broke, nearly all the bottles, and afterwards tried to striko Kleis with' a jug. Welsh stood still all the lime and did nothing. — Cross-examined by Mr Oakes— Witnoss had not received all hia wages from Mr Klois. Ho had given up his situation and another man now filled it. Ryan offered to pay for the porter and did not break anything. Did not know how many bottlos woro broken by Murphy, but tho eholves woro all cleared. •By Welsh : Witness did not sco this prißO"or behind tho countor. Another witnoMß said that ho. had seen Murphy tako hold of Klois and try to smash a bottle on his head. Ho also saw Uyan behind tho oountor and Murphy break all tho bottlos that woro on tho shelves. Oross-oxaminocl by Mr Oakes: Witness did not know what Byan was doing inside tho countoi'j ho might have boon paying Mr Klois for tho portor. By Welsh : Did not sco Welsh go bohind tho couutor. Mv Oakos nppliod for Ryan's disehargo as thoro was no caso against him. Tho Bench discharged Byan and Welsh. Mr Oakes then addressed the Bench on behalf of Murphy, and said that although tho landlord and witness had sworn that Murphy had brokon somo of tho bottles, yet as there wero two other men iv the row who had not been apprchonded, it was most likely that Muiphy hud done but a part of the damage complained of. It could not bo denied I hat Kleis had aoted very unwiseiy in endeavoring to separate men who woro enjoying a sorr of Irish row, and he had thus brought lons on himself. It had not been proved ns to tho exact amount of damage dono, and ho hoped his Worship would deal leniently with the prisoner. Tho Mngisi rate ordered Murphy to pay a fino of L 2 and LlO for damage s. ,

Mooro v. Soinmort. — An application was made in this case for an adjournment. Dv Berndt said that tho plaintiff was suffering from bilious fever, and could not attend. Adjourned for a wcoK t lho plaintiff to pny costs of adjournment Ilutton and Co v. O'Donnell. — Mr Macgregor appeared for tho plaintiffs H. Kennedy, publican, said that ho could produco the books and prove what amount had been roceived by defendant Adjourned till to-morrow morning. Duco, Drummond and Diilo v. M'Guiro and Lynch. — Mr Mncgregor appeared for tho pluintiflTs. An action to rocovor L 22 10s for oxtra work to Bash frames, &o. John Ditco deposed that ho and his partnors had taken a contraot to perform certain work in making additions to the Swan Hotol for L6O. Plaintiffs had received L 35 on account, and vow claimed payment of balanco of Ll6, and L 7 10s for oxtra work. By' Mr M'Guiro : Witnoss had been told by him to do tho oxtra work. William Dalo, another of tho plaintiffs, corroborated tho Btateinont of tlio previous witnoss. James Drummond said that tho contract was originally for L6O, and in consoquonco of a roduotion, the plaintiffs were to bo paid oxtra for window frames and somo otlior things. In tho specification producod, tho work to be paid for in addition to the. contract was specified. Mr M'Guiro ordered witness to make the wiudow sashes. Tho defendant M'Guiro deposed that ho had agreed with Mv Smith tho architect to build tho Swan Hotol. Ho drew tho plans and specifications, which inoludod all tho carpentorg' work necessary to bo done. Ho had paid another man for making tho window sushos. O. Gt. Smith said that ho was an architect. The work the plaintiffs ohargod for was included in the specification. Ho could point tho clause having reference to tho work for which paymont M r as now claimed. Tho witness pointed out a clause in which sashes wero montionod. Nothing, howovor, was said about frames. Tho witness said thut the plaiutifTs had made linings but not frames a« the windows wero fixtures. Sashes woro fixod into linings. Tho plaintiffs had charged £d for tho windows, whioh was too muoh. £3 would bo ample. His worship said thut as nothing was said in tho specification about windows ho should givo judgment for the amount olaimod and costs.

Crtssius and Co. v. Johnson and Ray.— Action for L 23 15s 9d, on a bill of exchange. Judgment by dofauli.

Wngnor v Brookraan. — Mr O'Loughlin for plaintiff ; Mr Muogregor for defendant. An action for breach of an agreement, dated 14th October, 1805 Jacob S. Wagner deposed that the agreement produced was signed by himself and the defendant Ho had entered into this agreement, beonuso at that time ho wished to enlarge tiie Shamrock Hotel, and not having suffir cieut money ho proposed a partnership to the dofondnnt to enable him (the plaintiff) to do this. Defendant signed the agreement, but on tho day following said ho would have nothing to do with the partnership. Had defendant kept to his ngreemonb plaintiff could havo made at lenst <£100(> more profit than he had umdo, by having better accommodation. In October last plaintiff's profits wero about J-200 or L3OO a week, but through not being able to enlarge his house as ho had tho profits had dwindled down to iiboutLfiOor LOO weekly, By Mr Macgregoi— Defendant had been injplaintiff's houso about a fortnight before tho agreement was signed. Tho agreement was drawn up by Mr Ohapman tho day after the partnership was proposed. Defendant had drunk rathor hard during the time ho stayed at plaintiff's houso. Upon plaintiff suggesting that tho agreement had bolter not bo executed until tho defendant was steadier, the latter insisted upon the agreement being completed at once. Tho defendant knew what ho was about at tho time, and after perusing tho draft ngreemont said that it might ho engrossed. Saw defendant read it at tho bar. Plaintiff was sure ihai. dofendant was sensible when he signed tho agreement. Mr Ohapiann made a valuation on behalf of witness, and Mr Binnoy made a valuation on behalf of the defendant. Witness knew Mr Marks, and had had a conversation with him about the agreement tha,t had been entered into between witness and defendant. Novor said to Marks that defendant was a drunkon fool, and ho (witness) could get a hundred pounds out of him. Had dofondant paid tho inonoy mentioned in tho partnership ngrcomont, plaintiff^ profits would havo been £1000 moro than ho had made, as tho hotel would havo boon onlargod. Witness arrived at tho amount of hia loss by oxamiuing his rocoipts. Ho could not howovor prove tho oxaot amount of loss. When tho valuation was made by Mossrs "Hinney and Chapman, dofondant was in bed but waa not insensible Was novor surprised feeling tho pookots of defendant's trowsers. He had borrowed £26 from him which defendant took out of his trowsera' pocket, and witness gave him a ohoque for the amount. Frederick Chapman said that he was a valuator and had prepared the agreement produced, at the roquost of plaintiff and defendant. Had taken an inventory .of all tho goods and chattels in the Shamrock Hotel and was paid by tho plaintiff. Witness attested tho signatures to tho agrcomont. Dofendant was sober whon he signod. Coinmouced taking inventory one night at eight o'clock and flnishod. at twelve o'clook. Saw dofondant in bod, and advised him to postpone completing tho agrooraont for a timo, whon ho said ho oould transaot business better after having a fow nobblera than at ofcbtr times, and if witnees did nofc care about witm«Birog th» exeoution of th« agvaemtut h*

would get sorno ono else to do it. Tho agreement was signed by tho dofondunt in tho bodroom ; ho had not a coat on at tho timo. Or. W. Binnoy said ho had made a valuation of tho goods aud chattels in. the Shanvock Hotel upon rocoiving instructions from tho dofendant to do so. Tho dofendant was in bod whon tho valuation was made. Mr Hall said ho was a morokant, and in Oetobor last was ""ownor of tho proporty known as tho Shamrock Hotel. Defendant called on him sometime during that month and offered to givo him a ohequo for the amdtint of purchase money less ten per cent commission. — C. G. Smith, architect, said ho had received instructions from Mr Wagner, in the oarly part of October to draw out a plan of an hotel of about the same size as that of tho Shamrook at present. He afterwards received instructions to draw a plan of an hotel of much larger dimensions from both plaintiff and defendant. The defendant appeured to be suffering from tho effects of drink, but answered questions pretty clearly. Mr Mao* gregor said that the defence was that when the ogreomentwas proposed and signed, the defou* dantwasinasemi-deliiiousßtato. John Brookman, deposed that he was carrying on business at tho Q-roy. In October last wns at Wagner's Hotel, and indulged at that timo so freely in drink that ho did not know what ho was doing. Had spent £70 in fivo days in v liquor at that timo. Woke up ono night aud saw plaintiff with Jiis (witness's) trousers in his hand. Asked him what ho wanted, when ho replied that ho wished to borrow somo monoy. Witnoss, whon ho know what ho had dono with voßpeet to tho agreement, told plaintiff that ho (witness) had been very foolish, and would pay for tho oxpensosof valuation, 4.c, but would not abide by tho agreoment as witness had boon stupid with drink, which had cost him £70 during tho five preceding days. Mr Henry Marks said ho wns a merchant and know tho plaintiff and dofondant. Mot plaintiff in tho street, whon ho said ho had gono into partnership with dofendant, who wishod to draw out of it. Witness said that if dofendant objeotod, plaintiff had bettor have nothing to do with him. Plaintiff vopliod that defendant was a A drunkon fool, and ho could got a £100 out of him. Honry Kennedy, publican, proved that dofendant had callod at his houso on tho evening of tho 12th Oetobor. Dofondant wns drunk and vory stupid, and dropped a cheque for £400, initialled by the manager of tho Bank of Now Zoaland. Witnoss got a constablo to take defendant back to tho Shamrook Hotel. His Worship said that it was oloar dofondant was drunk whon tho agreoment was ontorod into, and should therefore give judgment for dofendant with costs. TurnbuU & Co. v/ Captain of the Clutha. Case adjourned for a week.

Evans v. Andorson — Claim for .-640 for moat supplied. Judgment by dofault. Ohurohoß, Ohing & Co. v. Prico and O'Neil. Aotion to recovor £32 17s. 2d. for goods sold and delivered. Judgment fov tho amount olaimed.

O'Dtiscoll v. 801 l and "Rao.— Claim for £100 on a bill of exohango. Caso remanded for one month for the production of oflloo copy of deed of assignment of defendants' property to trustees. '

Evans v. Webstor. — An aotion on breach of agreement. Mr Campbell for plaintiff, Mr Maogrogor for defendant. Judgment for dofondant with costs.

The Court thon adjourned till 11 o'clock to-morrow (this) morning.