RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 172, 7 April 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Beforo G-; Or. FitzGorald, Esq., R.M.)

Pmday, iSrii APRir.. Lvkacy. — John Robinson, brought up on remand from the 2nd instant* was. charged with being of unsound mind. . Dj llyley recommended the prisoner, be Bbjfu'p. VenVanded arid Rent to" the hospital for 1 '& FeW days, as he was not a lunatic, but only suffering from the effects of hard drinking. Lunacy. — Jamea Jones, brought up on remand from the 3rd instant, was also charged with being of unsound mind. I'h^ prisoner was discharged on Dr Ryley stating that he had been suffering from congestion of the brain, but was now sufficiently recovered to allow of his being at large. B beach of Slaughter -HpusE Obdi-NANCE.~-Thoma9 Betts was charged , with, slaughtering three sheep on the beach at; the back qf his premises iv lie veil- streei; h6 hot having a license for the premises. Constable White, Inspector of Slaughterhouses, was called, and proved that the defendant had killed the sheep on the 26th ult., and had not given him notice that he intended doing so. Defendant stated that the three sheep were the last of a lot he had purchased, and did not think it waa worth while to drive them up to his other yards, but that he had since removed the pens, and waa now slaughtering on his licensed premises. The magistrate stated he had no option in the matter, but that the Act clearly stated that any person slaughtering on unlicensed premises should be lined £5 a head. Mr Belts was accordingly fined in the sum of £15. . A similar charge was brought against Mr Moffatt, for slaughtering two sheep on his premises in Kevell-street. The charge was fully proved, and a fine of £10 inflicted. Taylor v. McClintock— Plaintiff sought to, recover the sum of £100, lor injury done to him bydefendant. Mr Johnston appeared for Taylor, and Mr South appeared for McClintock. Plaintiff stated that on the 18th ultimo he was passing McClintock's house, when the defendant called him in to drink. On his declining defendant tried to pull him in, another man assisting him to do so. By Mr Johnston : Peter, the mau who helped to drag him into the house, struck him a blow on the cheek. By Mr South : was going home at the time. Mr McClintock did not strike him but dragged him along the ground. William Berndt said he saw plaintiff |being dragged along the ground by defendant and another man. Edward Ashwell was then called by Mr Johnston to show that the' house was a rowdy one, and was pro ceeding with a rigmarole in no way con nected with the case, when Mr Fitzgerald cut him short and, ordered him out of the witness box. Mr McClintock having been sworn, said that the plaintiff haying ipre*d some false reports concern-

ing his servant's honesty, he wished to have the matter cleared up, by bringing" the plaintiff face to face with the person accused. He did not strike him. The Court gavejudgment for ss, with costs 31s and of cine witness 10s. "Moncrieffv. Fellows— For goods deiivered. Judgment by default for £33 13s 6d, with costs Bs. Henderson nnd Bonnr v. Owners of the s.s. Thane.— Mr South appeared for plaintiffs ; Mr O'Loughlin for defendants. This was an action to recover the sum of £100, for goods shipped by s.s. Thane, for J ck- rtj>on's Bay. Messrs Henderson nnd Bonar h.aa 'pat the' goods on board the vessel upon the understanding thut^he was going to Jackson's Bay, whereas she had stayed at Okarita, having got aground there. The goods were sold there, and did not realise within £132 of their cost. Mr O'Loughlin elicited from the plaintiff that he was not aware that the Thane had been advertised to call at Okurita en route for Jackson's Bay, and moved that a nonsuit be recorded, inasmuch as it bad not been provedHhat Mr Little was owner of the Thane. The Magistrate allowed the case to go on, Baying that be would reserve his decision as regarded the nonsuit. Mr O'Loughlin also urged .that the .goods had been riafnaged by perils of the sea, and applied .- jfor an adjournment, to enable the captain to give evidence on that point. Mr South argued that the Thane had, by going into Okarita, deviated from her voyage, by which the plaintiffs had lost their goods. The case was, therefore, adjourned uutil 12th inst. Sequestrator Supreme Court v Louisson and Co. — Mr South appeared for the defendants. This was an action to recover the sum of £2? iSs, being the property of the insolvent estate of Messrs Lyons and Prince. Mr Prince of the above mentioned firm had bought Certain goods from Messrs Wai-drop, in bond.. They, were jhit'c'hased on an acceptance since dishonoured. Mr Prince had received an order for the delivery of the goods, and requested Mr Louisson, in whose bond the the goods were, to get the goods out and forward them to Greymouth, when a remittance for expenses would be returned in lieu. Mr Louisson stated that Messrs Marks and Co. had requested him not to deliver any of these good 3 unless the warrants were produced. Mr Prince did not give him warrants for the goods, the value of which is now sued for. Therefore

they were never transfer! ed from Messrs Marks and Cos. account to Messrs Lyons sind Prince. Had Mr Prince presented the warrants. I have .delivered him the (roods on the order lie presented; Magistrate said he would reserve his decision until next day (Saturday.) The Court then adjourned until this day aC eleven o'clock, a.m. In the cases of Cassius and Co!, v Crisp Brothers, Crate v Heslop, Crate v Hammond, and Dunning lloss ami Co v. Cotton, thei'e was no appearance of either plaintiffs or defendants.