RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 351, 7 November 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Hefore G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., H..M.)

TUKSD.VY, N'oVEMBKR 6. Dkunkjinness. — Thus. l J ;iye was charged with chia offmce, and mulcted in tne usual fine ; in default of payment, 24 hours imprisonment Disorderly Conduct, &c. — Tiuioth} O'Meara was charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct, ne was fined 5s for the first offence, and 15s for the second ; in default of payment, three days' imprisonment. Ano'her charge, of assaulting a constable in, the execution of his duty, was then preferred against him, and the same biing clearly proved, he was fined L 2 ; in default of pa3 r nient, four days' imprisonment. Larceny. — Alice M'Farlane was brought up on rem.ind, charged with larceny from a dwelling. Mr Button, on behalf of the prisoner, applied for a further remind till to-morrow (this day), and the same was granted. Destruction of Property. — Patrick Slit a was charged with the wilful destruction of private property. George El 1 is, on being sworn, stated that he was the proprietor of the Shakespeare Hotel He knew the prisoner. He had been in his (witness 1 ) room the evening before. His (witness') wife called him in to the con-cert-room, where he found that the prisoner had amused himself by piling a lot of chairs, music stand, and other articles upon the top of the pianoforte. The prisoner had destroyed property to the v ilue of Ll . W. Crawford was then called, and deposed tint the pri-oner had been very quarrelsome all the evening, and upon his having seen bun piling chairs, &c, upon the pianoforte, he proceeded to address him upon the impropriety thereof, whereupon prisoner fook up t chair and threw it at witness. Another person tvas then called, and gave corrob >- rative evidence. The pris ncr said he had no recollection of the aff-iir, as he was drunk at the time it occurred. His Woi - ship ordered him to contribute to the revenue in the sum of Ll, aim fined him L 2 for the damage done. — Goldy was then charged with having beaten a lad named Daniel Smythers. Mr Button for complainant, Mr South for accused. The father of the lad w.is called, and deposed that be recolleett d Wednesday last When be was returning from his dinner he saw the accused kicking his boy. The boy was dn the ground. Witness ran up to accused and demanded to know what he meant, when he (accused) replied that he would serve witness iiiihes-ime way. By M> South— He had t>een accused kicking the buy between the and the shoulders. The kicks were very violi-nt. He remembered accused telling him that the boy had taken smne money. He had not considered it necessary to examine the boy. Daniel Smythers was then called, and being examined as to the nature of an oath, and his answers bein^ deemed satisfactory, he was sworn, when he staged th.it he knew the accused. He remembered Wednesday last. He was pluying on that day with another lad, when the lad said, "you uan't catch me," and witness replied, "Oh yes, I can," and immediately ran after him, and secured his cap, plticing it on Mr Goldy's windjw-sill, whereupon Goldy made some" remark about it. and had chased him and knocked him down. Witness then got up nnd lifted a stone, when Goldy agmu rushed at him and knocked him down and kicked him By Mr South — He never took any money. Mr Goldy could not have got half-a-crowii from him, as he had never had one. He \va* certain that accused had kit ked him. He. did not fall by ducking to avoid the bl.>w. He remembered to have used an improper expression -towards the accused. He had not been in the habit of annoying Mr Goldy. He was certain accused kicked him. He had never given any other provocation than that stated. This closed the plaintiff's case, and Mr South then addressed the Court on behalf of- the accused. He said that since entering the Court he had discovered [ that the lad, Daniel Smythers, was no other than Mr Button's office boy. He characterised the case as of a very trivitil nature, and would c-ill evidence to show that Goldy never knocked the boy down, but in the attempt to box his ears the lad, in his hurry to escape the threatened blow, had fuilen. Maurice Harris being sworn, said that he wus an expi ess- ', driyer residing in Hokitika. He had oten the boy before to-day. He recollected the

I circumstances attending this complaint, lie had seen Mr Goldy " cuff" the lad, and enquire what he had taken the other bty's hat for; the' youth then answered him iv a very unbecoming manner Mr Goldy then followed him, and alminiHtered a slap. The b->y ducked under, and fell. lie had se^n the defendant push him, but he never saw the boy kicked. Mr Button then intimated to the Court that the complainant had no desire to have a heavy fine inflicted, but that the accused might be admonished, as he thought it most cowardly in him to have used .such uunucss iry violence towards a mere striphiig. His Worship said he did not feel disposed to let the accused off so easiiy, and as his conduct had been anything but manly, he would fine him in the sum of 1/2. An information w.ia laid against one Wulker Morrison, late Kanieri butcher, for that on or about Monday, the 15th day of October last from thsouth bunk of the Hokitika river one brown mare branded on off shoulder, B under off suddle, aid 7 near shoulder, .star on forehead, off fore foot wnite, of the goods and chattels of one . Simon, the Alaori from the custody of the informant, did feloniously steal, tuk>-aud lead or drive away. Mr Button appeared for the accused, aud his "Worship intimated the information had been withdrawn. Lakceny. — John Harthy was brought charged respectively with the larceny of L 25 L2O, and LlB, and" at the request of the police was remanded on each charge till to-monow (this day). CIVIL CASES. Home v. Worrall —The plaintiff was non-suited owing to the non-joinder of the husband of defendant. Chalmers v. Reaney. — This was for 'noney lent by plaintiff to defendant. The evidence was very conflicting, and his Worship gave judgment for defendant. Cassitis & Co. v. Upham. — Tnis w^s a claim for the value of certain wines supplied to the order of defendant. The claim wan admitted, but the defendant denied his liability, he only having ordered tuem in the capacity of agent, the wines were used on the occasion of the dinner to Mr Bartlett. On cross-examination the defendant admitted that he had told the plaintiffs "to book them to him.'" His Worship deferred judgment till to-morrow (this day). Sullivau v. Kunkin. — This was an actiou for money lent, and now payable from defendant to plaiutiff. Mr Home for plaintiff, and Mr Button for defendant. From the evidence adduced it appeared that the plaintiff had paid a sum of money to procurt Mr Kaukin's release from gaol at the reques-t of Mrs Raukin, whom he now oued. The plaintiff was non-suited on the ground of non-joinder of the defendant. Mathfson v. Edgar. -This was an action brought on a verbal contract to enforce payment of money alleged to be due for the cutting and delivery of certain saplings. Mr Harvey for plaintiff, -and Mr Button for defendant. The weight of evidence being iv favor of tlie defendant, hid Worship gave judgmcut accordingly. Gordon & Co. v. Nahr. — Ttiis case waa called and adjourned to the 1 3th inst. Symon v. Foster. — Mr Cu:npbell asked the Bench to adjourn this ease till next Tuesday, in order to enable him to procure the attendance of a most material witness. His Worship granted the adjournment, the plaintiff paying the costs of the day. Fox v. Campbell. — Claim on an I O U. Plaintiff in person, Alrßuttou for defendant. The defence was that the I O U formed a part of partnership effects, that a dissolution had taken place, and thatinthesquaring-uu .it had been included, but by an oversight had been allowed to remain in the pot>session of the plaintiff. After hearing the evidence, his Worship said that he had no hesitation in giving a verdict in favor of the defendant. Hinds v. M'Lean Jack. — This waa an action to recover tlu value of some fowls alleged to have been killed by the defendant. The plaintiff made a long rambling statement, uud after placing the defendant in the witness box. bis Worship gave judgment for him. Hinds v. Druminond. — This was a claim for the destruction of certain fowls, and also for money payable to plaintiff for services rendered to defendant's wife, at his request. The defendant clearly disproved the-imputation of having killed the fowls, and the plaintiff as clearly proved his indebtedness for the services. His Worship fjave judgment for plaintiff in the sum of 10s. Franckand Alundle v. Ralph. — This was a claim for damage done to certain fishermen's nets at the Teremakau. Mr Button f>>r plaintiff*, and Air Rees tor defendant. ; Mr Button stated the case, and called Dominic Mundle, who on his oath said that he and another man were fishermen by trade, and had some nets. They were damaged on Wednesday List. His mate and himself hud put their nets on the spit of the Teremakau. The nets were in the water and could be distinguished by the floating corks. The nt. ts were not in the place where the cattle or boats usually passed. They were damaged by reason of some cattle then under the defendant's management having been swam across the Teremakau, and that, too, immediately over the spot where the nets were. It would cost fully L2O to repair them. After the cattle had been put across rtitnea looked at the nets and found that they had fared very badly. By Mr Rees — He was certain the nets were not at the ordinary cro.ising place. Cattle were alirayu crossed at the spit whether tlie tide wus in or not. Witness was sure the cattle had swam exactly over the nets. As much as thirty fathom of the net was materially damaged. Lawrance Larsen was then called and deposed, that he had aeen the defendant driving the catile int - the river. He had not seen them pass through the nets, but they mu-.t have gone very near to them. The township was aquatter of a mile from the river, and a man standing at the township could cot by any possibility have seen tne cattle 1 pass through the nets. By Mr Uees — Cattle were crossed from the spit to the island. ,He bad not seen tne cattle pass through the nets. Mr Ralph was driving the cattle. The hordes were also crossed. He had not taken any particular notice as to whether } the horses bad swam over the nets or n-t. Mundle was on the beach close to his tent. No other cattle than those before referred to had crossed the Tereraakau that day. John Cox was then called, and being sworn, deposed that lie had seen Mr Ralph driving the cattle through the river. He had aLo observed the corks of the net on the surface of the river. The cattle crossed where the nets were. He had not seen the nets after the cattle had crossed the river. He was positive that be had seen the nets immediately before the cattle were crossed. In his opinion LI I or Ll2 would buy' a net in Dunedin similar to plaintiffs'. They would be more valuable here. By Mr Rees— The distance across the river was about thirteen or fourteen feet.- The u^ual crossing place for ctitjlo is at the spit to ,

I the island. The plaintiff lives by fish-" ing. He sometimes puts cattle across the river. There was ample roam to have crossed th ■■ cattle without interfering with the nets Plaintiff was then recalled, and on his former oath deposed that when he got up to the nets the defendant said that he had caught a large fish, (viz., a hu'.lock) in the net. He (plaintiff) n plied, that he would make defendant pay for the large fish. This closed the plaintiff's case. " Mr Rees then addressed the Court for the defence, saying that there wus no case to answer ; and he must therefore move for a nonsuit. Tho plaintiff, according to his own testimony, had placed his nets across a running stream, and of which they were not the legal owners; and unless the plaintiffs proved that the defendant crossed tlie river with intent to break the nets, he really with all deference, was at a loss to si c hf-w bis Worship could give a verdict against his client. The river was open to all, and the defendant had as much right to cross in any part of it, as the plaintiffs had to lay a net from bide to side. Mr Button replied shortly to the nonsuit point, and his Worship ruled that the case must be proceeded with. Mr Rees then called Wagstaff, who being sworn, deposed that he had seen the nets on Wednesday last, aud had also observed the cattle cross. They were fully thirty yards from the net. The defendant gave evidence to the same effect, and after the counsel had addressed the Court, his Worship said that he would give judgment to-morrow morning (this day). Flint v. Renton. -This was a ciaim for iron alleged to have been used by defendant without plaintiff's consent. Mr Button for defendant, slated that he had adri-ifid his ilienttopay Ll into Court, which had been done. The defendant would not deny having taken the iron, for it had been lying on the beach as th.-ugh it had been abandoned. After hearing the evidence .bis Worship remarked that the defendant had no right to take the iron, and he would therefore give judgment for plaintiff in the sum of L 2 inclusive of the. amount paid into Court. Crowdy v. Ross. —This was a claim for the value of' a saddle and bridle. The plaintiff having failed in establishing his ca?e, his Worsnip nonsuited him. Powell v. Hornett- — Tnia was a claim for refreshments provided for defendant at his request. Each party seemed to be of opinion that he was right, and the defendant refused to pay "■ on principle.' 1 After hearing the evidence, his Worship gave' judgment for plaiutiff for the sum of 10s 6d, being the amount claimed. The plaintiff requested his Worship to hand the suiue to the Hokitika Hospital. Austin v. Payne. — This was an action to recover Lls, being alleged balance due by plaintiff to defendant. Air South for plaintiff, and Air Button for defendant. From the plaintiff's evidence, it appeared that plaintiff and defendant had been in partnership, and that one Rosenberg having offered LBO for the premises, defendant wished plaintiff to concur in the sale, which he had declined to do, unless his share and portion of the purchase money were paid do»\u. The defendant had then promised to buy the plaintiff out, aud had paH LlO down on account of the purchase, the balance (Lls) to be paid a ! few dayß after. This ugreeement had not been observed, and hence the present action. The defendant gave quite a different version of the matter ; and, after hearing counsel in the case, his \Vort>hip directed a verdict to be entered for the defendant. There were nine cases dismissed for nonappearance of plaintiffs and defendants, and in six cases judgment was given for plaintiffs by default. The Court then adjourned till 11 a.m. to-morrow (this day).