RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 383, 14 December 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. Fitzgerald, Esq., R.M.) Thuhsiuy, December 13.

Drunkenness. - Henry Woolliscroft and Esther Stanfield were charged with being drunk and incapable, and were respectively lined ss, in default of payment 13 hours' imprisonment. Esther Stanfield was then < lurged with disorderly conduct, and the sasne being proved she was lined Ll, in default of payment 48 hours' imprisonment.

CIVII, CASES.

Carey v. Wieland. — this iva3 a e'aiiu for LIOO, for damages sustained by plaintiff in consequence of the negligent driving of cer* tain cattle by the defendant. Mr Button Sot plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for defendant. The plaintiff's case was that his mates and self were, on the 18th day of November last, travelling along the Hokitika beach, when qomo cattle, driven by tho defendant, rushed the plaintiff and knocked him down, thereby ii flicting serious injury. Mr Harvey moved for a non-suit, on the ground tint it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove thut the plaintiff to pro to that tho defendant was acquainted with the vicious propensities of the animal. Mr Button repKed, and his Worship said that he must grant the non-suit, but it undoubtedly was a hard case for the plaintiff, and he would recommend the defendant to pay him his reasonable expenses. Williams & Co. v. Sp-.nco Bros. — This was an action to recover the sum of L2B 2s for and on account of damage done by salt water to a certain bale of goods alleged to have been shipped in good order and condition in the Sarah and Mary. Mr 'Harvey for plaintiffs, and Mr South for defendants. The evidence for the phiintiffs disclosed that the gooch had been shipped in good order and condition. Messrs Bastard a.»d Byrne were called, who proved that thoy hai'hclda survey on the bale in question but that they were unable to state "whether the damage was caused by salt water or not. Mr South then moved for a* nonsuit on tho ground that the plaintiffs ha' 1 failed prove, in conformity with their declaration, to that the alleged damage had been caused by salt water. Mr Harvey replied, and his Worship said that lie would not st6p the case, but would reserve the point. Tho evidence for the defence was then gone into, which tended to show that the-'daningc done to the bale had been through the sumo becoming milldewod. His Worship was of opinion that tho plaintiffs had failed to prove the defendants' liability, and the judgment would therefore bo for tho defendants with costs.

Palmer v. M'Quilkan & Collison.— On the application of Mr Button the hearing of this ease wan postponed till tho 4th day of January next.

Cassius & Co. v. Dillman &• Weber. — The plaintiffs herein did not appear, and Mr Rees on behalf of the defendants applied for a non-suit, which was granted with costs. Dillman v. Smith. — This was a claim for LIOO for damages sustained by plaintiff in consequence of tho non-d<slivery by the defendant of some flour. Mr Bees for plaintiff and Mr Button for defendant. The evidence was somewhat conflicting, and his Worship reserved judgment till to-morrow (Ibis day). Marks & Co. v. M'Nubb.— The plaintiffs were non-suited owing to the agent who atfended for them not having a written authority to appear. Callaghan v. Berry —This was a claim for money lent by plaintiff to defendant. Mr Button for plaintiff and Mr Rces fortlefendaut. On erobs-cximiniilion, Mr Rues elicited that the plaintiff had received payment of Lll from tho defondunt, and for which sum ho had not.given the defoudaufc credit. After hearing the his Worship gave judgment for tlio amount claimed, less ths übove item. T{# rpW£tit*fog $yi| Map tt-ftry {KljoiN'ftod till 4S»*4#y fttttt *

The following cases were dismissed owing to thu non-appearance of the plaintiffs and defendants : — Harvey v. Cassius <fc Gibson, Smith v. (Jiark, M'Grnth v. Griffiths, Girdwood t. Gordon, Prichard & Galloway v. Goodman, Moran v. Evan & Co., Moran v. Ryan & Burke, Cassius & Co. v. M'Gullock.