Tuesday, October 30.

West Coast Times, Issue 345, 31 October 1866, Page 2

Tuesday, October 30.

Drunkenness, &c— Michael O'Brien was charged with being drunk and incapable. He was fined 5s for this offence. Another charge was then heard, viz., disorderly conduct, and the same being proved the prisoner was ordered to contribute to the revenue the sum of 15s. In default of payment 48 hours' imprisonment. Vagrancy. — Charles Brown was placed in the dock in conformity with clause 3, section 4of the Vagrant Act. From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner Had entered an hotel and called for drinks without having the wherewithal to pay, and that upon the money being demanded he boisterously refused payment. The prisoner in his detente stated that he had been in the habit of " sticking up" drinks at the prosecutor' 3 hotel, but at the end of the week he generally produced the cash. His Worship discharged the prisoner. The charge sheet disclosed that the same man had been guilty of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, and for this offence he was fined L 2, in default of payment four days' imprisonment. Obstructing Thoroughfare. — Michael Ashmore was charged with obstructing a thoroughfare. Mr Button appeared for the prosecution. The evidence disclosed the obstruction, and showed that notice to remove same had been served upon accuaed, aiuLthat he had failed to comply with its terms. The case was adjourned till this morning Burglary. — John Doughertj' was charged with this offence, and on the application of the police was remanded till this morning. Indecent Assault. — This wa? another charge against the same prisoner, and at the request of Sergeant Hickson he was remanded till to-day.

Assault. — BenjarainTaggart was charged by Richard Reeves with assaulting him, and the complainant prayed that he mu_.ht be bound over to keep the peace. Mr South, for complainant, and Mr Harvey for accused. Richard Reeves, ■ being sworn, deposed that he was an aucttineer, residing in Hokitika ; he knew the accused, Benjamin Taggart ; he was personally acquainted with him. He He did not feel himself safe from the violence of the aQcused ; he had reason to believe that he was constantly in danger of being assaulted by the accused ; he desired that he might be bound over to keep the peace. On Fridaj' last witness was standing at the Post Office with his hands in his pockets, when the accused crossed over the street to him, and said, " How do you feel now ? " Witness replied, " All right.' 1 Accused then " drew off," and struck witness a violent blow in the face. When witness got up he proceeded to the Post Office Hotel in order to wash liis face. Accused followed him, abusing him in a most violent manner (tne language is unfit for publication), and challenging witness to go on the beach and fight him (the accused) for a ten- pound note. Witness had too much self-respect to accept the invitation. Mr Harvey then rose to crossexamine complainant, when Mr South objected. The counsel for the accused then said that if the complainant wo ild abandon the assault his client would willingly find sureties for his good behaviou I.1 '. The offer was not accepted. There was a cross-information laid by the accused against the former complainant. Benjamin Taggart sworn and examined by Mr Harvey— He recollected Friday last, for on that day he had a conversation with. Mr Reeves (the accused) at the Warden's Court. He had informed witness that if he lost the case then being heard, he would knock witness' teeth dowu his throat. He had held his fist up as though he meant to do it. Mr Souih drew the attention of the Court to the fact that on the 26th October Mr Reeves had laid his information, whereas Mr T,aggart had allowed three days to pass over, his information not having been laid till the 29th instant. His Worship would give judgment today, and would, however, recommend the parties to have no more rows in the streets.

Depositing Rubbish on the Be\ch. — John Nicholas was charged with this offence, and the same being proved, he was fined L 2, in default of payment four days' imprisonment.

Obstructing Thoroughfare. — Francis and T. Clarke, trading as " Clarke liros.," were charged with obstructing a thoroughfare. They produced a letter which had been written by the Harbor Master, and which they thought was sufficient authority. His Worship would cause some enquiry to be made, and would give judgmeut this day.

Rosenberg v.Lotson. —Claim LB, alleged value of a watch, &c. The plaintiff on being tworn, stated that on the Bth of the current month, he offered a watch to the defendant. The price was fixed at LB. He had consented to let the watch temxin with defendant for a day or two, so that he might see that it it was in proper order. He had only kept the wutch a lew days and then returned it Upon witness wantins? defendant to keep the watch lie had refused. By defendant— Witness wis desirous of selling the watch to defendant. A witness was called by the plaintiff, but his evidence was quite immaterial. The defence wan non-purchase of the, watch, and it wa« proved that the wftteh was not

in good order when delivered to defendaut. His Worship gave judgment for defendant.

Gawn v. Nahr. — This was a claim arising out of certain goods borrowed by Mr Charles Veith, and detained in the Southland Restaurant. The plaintiff being sworn, deposed to the above facts, but upon being cross-examined by Mr Home (who represented defendant), he admitted that he did not know who the proprietor was, and that he had never spoken to Mr Nahr, but he believed him to be the proprietor. H. J. Hansen, being sworn, deposed that he purchased the Cafe de France and the Southland Restauiaut on the 19th in&tant. Mr Home considered it unnecessary to address the Bench Plaintiff nonsuited.

Casbmore v. Cohen. — This was a claim to recover the value of a pair of blankets The plaintiff deposed that he had lent tbe blankets to defendant, and had frequently asked for them without success. The price specified in the bill of particulars was fair and reasonable. He had demanded payment and had been refused. By defendant — I c had never told defendant that he might keep them. Defendant stated that he had agreed with the plaintiff that a window should be put in. Plaintiff did not have the window put in, and defendant had to have it done, and he now claimed to be allowed the rnone} 7 paid on that account to stand as a set off. The agreement having been produced, and there being no such condition in it, his Worship gave judgment for amount claimed and costs.

Angus v. Smith. — Claim for goods sold and delivered. It appeared that plaintiff held an I O U, for the amount to which the defendant was indebted, and his Worship refused to give judgment unless it waa deposited in the Court. He would, therefore adjourn the case to the 6th prox Clarke Bros. v. Osborne.— This was an adjourned ca3e. Mr Rees for plaintiffs, and Mr Harvey for defendant. Tbe claim was for payment of a toil of coals, sold and delivered by p'aintiffs to defendant. Plaintiff, being called, deposed that he had seen an order on the commercial slate, "send a ton of coals to Empire Hotel," and that accordingly he sent the coals, and the drayman brought back thereceipt (produced). The defendant had never, to witness, denied having received the coals, but alleged that he had paid somebody el-e. By Mr Harvey — The drayman delivered the coals. The receipt then shown witness was the same as is usually used in plaintiffs' office. The signature was that of Mr Yewers ; he was barman at the Empire then. The coals had arrived by the John Mitchell, and plaintiff had purchased them from Captain Thomson. Robert Hnzelm, sworn, stated — Tbat he was a carter in the employ of the plaintiffs. He remembered having delivered a ton of coals at defendant's hotel. The receipt produced was signed by the barman, Mr Yewers. By Mr Harvey — Witness had delivered the coals at the Empire Hotel. Mr Harvey, for the defence, stated that Captain Thomson had sold some coals to Mr Osborne. and had only partially delivered them, intimating that he had sold the balance of the cargo to Messrs Clarke Brothers. His client had paid Captain Thomson for the coals, and it would be very hard if he had to pay for them again. As for the receipt being signed by Mr Yewers, he believed that had been done in ignorance. The defendant, being swe i n, stated that he had purchased some coals from Captain Thomson. They formed portion of the cargo of the Johu Mitchell. Three tons and fifteen cwt. had been delivered by Thomson. The coals for which plaintiffs were suing to recover might have been delivered. Witness had never ordered any coals from plaintiffs, and he was not aware of anyone in hia employ having so done. If any had been ordered, it had been done without his kuowledge or consent. J. H. Yewers was called and admitted tbat the signature to the receipt was his, and that he had seen the coals delivered. His Worship would give judgment this day. Rochfort v. Blackall. — Claim for money payable for board and lodging. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. Stealer v. Tilltnan. — This was a claim for money payable to plaintiff for services as a musician. Judgment for plaintiff for LI, his Worship remarking that the plaintiff might consider himself very fortunate in obtaining a judgment.

Wilson v. Wilson. — Claim for wages as a seaman, &c. Mr Waller, on behalf of the defendant, applied for an adjournment, stating that the summons had only been served when the defendant had his vessel ready for sea. The vessel would be in Hokitika in about a fortnight. His Worship would not grant the adjournment. The plaintiff proved his case, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.

Judgment for plaintiffs, by reason of the non-appearance of the defendants was given in the following cases : — Cassius v. Greer, Byrne v. Williams, Nid y. Wilson, Betts <fc Co. v. Moran, Young v. Mackie & Co., Lockhart v. Gordon, Driscoll & Co. v. M'Gorky, Dunne t>nd Dutton v. Neill & - Co., Morison & Law v. Bouar.

There -was no appearance of plaintiffs or defendants in any of the undermentioned cases : — Driscoll v. Bryan, Phillips v. Dawson, Emerson v. Sommers, Hender v. Harper, Hall v. Smith, Kennedy v. Kebble, Boylan & Cnllen v. Dougherty, Ellis v. Sir.ger, Callau v. Prince 1 Gal«n vPower, Cliike v. Hansm, Delph v. Allen, Mackie v. Eicke, Kiiwin v. Druniniond & M'Cami M<.ffattv Barnaid. The Court at.ji.urned till 11 this d«y.

site J-ramway