RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 338, 23 October 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.)

■Monday, October £2.

Drunkenness — George Woods, Thomas M'Nevon, and Peter Gibson were charged with this offence, und fined respectively os, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment. %

Lunacy. — William Thomas was brought up, charged with being of unsound mind. He was remanded to the 25th instant, for medical examination.

Drunk and Disorderly. — Maurice Stone was charged with these offences, and acknowledging his culpability, was fined 5s for drunkenness and 15s for disorderly conduct — in default of payment 48 hours' imprisonment. Obscene Language. — Thomas M'Nowson was fined Ll for this offence, and in default of payment, 48 hours' imprisonment.

Abusive Language' — Jehn Hipps was charged with using abusive and insulting language in a public place, and, the charge being proved, he was fined 20s, or in default of payment, 48 hours' imprisonment.

Conspiring to Murder. — William De Lacy was again placed in the dock to answer this charge. Mr Broham stated that at present he was unable to proceed, owing to the non-arrival of Sullivan, who was a most material witness, and he would therefore ask for a further remand. The prisoner requested that the warrant might be read over" to him, as, having been remanded for eight days, and that time having expired, he wanted to know the reason why he had not been brought up on Saturday last. His Worship declined to read the warrant, intimating that the appearance of Sullivan was daily expected. He would remand the prisoner, but would admit him to bail in the former amount, viz., himself in L2OO, and two sureties of LIOO each. WiiiTUL Murder. — James Wilson, on remand, was again placed in the dock, charged with wilful murder. Mr'Brohara asked for a further remand, on the grounds stated in the application injthe former case. Remand granted. "

civil cases.

Louisson v. Moir. — In this case his Worship gave judgmeat, stating that he could not see any ground for reversing his former opinion. It was evident sufficient notice of the dishonor of the bill had not been given. The verdict would, therefore, be for the«defendant.