RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 591, 16 August 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

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

Thubsday, August 15. Dbttnkenness.— David Chrystai; Robert Bell, and Mary Cope were charged with this offence. The two latter -were fined 10s., or, in default, twenty-four hours imprisonment. Chrystal failing to appear on his recognizance, his bail (L 3) was forfeited. Breach of Police Obdinance. — Mary - Cope was charged with wilful destruction of private property of the value of 15s. The prosecutor failing to appear, the prisoner was discharged. N

Labceny. — John Thomson was charged with stealing tliree dozen bottles of lemonade, of the value of about 275. Constable M'GHll deposed that at about half-past two on the morning of the 15th instant he observed the prisoner walking down Eevell street with a case containing the bottles of lemonade produced. When prisoner saw the constable approaching he placed them on a hand-cart. The witness went across the street to prisoner, and asked him how he came by the bottles of lemonade. Prisoner denied all knowledge of them, and refused to give his name to the constable when requested to do so. Mr Broham here asked that the prisoner be remanded till the morning of the 16th inst. The prisoner stated that he had fourteen' shillings on him last night, and- this morning he found that he had spent it ; consequently he must have paid for the lemonade. -He further added that ' " stealing bottles was entirely a new feature in - his character." The prisoner was remanded till the 16th inst.

LARCENY FROM A DWELLING. — John Burt was charged with stealing a gold watch of the value La. Gotlib Bergman was called and deposed— that he was a bootmaker residing at' the Kanieri. Up to Saturday the 10th inst, the prisoner was in the witnesses' employ. Since that time he had frequently visited the his house. On the 14th instant the witness misled his watch, and he suspected the pri« soner of having stolen it, as he was in the house a short time before he (witness) missed the watch. He gave information to the police, and shortly afterwards a watch was handed to him by Sergeant Slattery, which he identified to be his property.— John Lightfoot was called, and stated that tho prisoner called at his hotel on the Kanieri, between four and five o'clock on the afternoon of the 14th inst., and offered a watch for sale. The witness identified the watch produced as the sain* one as he saw in the possession of the prisoner. — William. Woodside deposed to having purchased the watch produced from a person named Graves on tho evening of the 14th" inst. He told witness that he was hard up. — John Graves deposed that he had known prisoner for the last six weeks. On the afternoon of the 4th instant prisoner met the witness, and asked him to sell the watch in question to Woodside. Prisoner said he did not like to go ta Woodside's as he (prisoner) was a bootmaker also, aud he did no£ want Woodside to know that he was hasd up. The witnesi accordingly offered the watch to Mr Woodside for sale, and he bought it. The prisoner declined to make any statement, and was sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labor.

Recjbivivg Stolen Propertt. — John Graves was charged with this offence. Mr Broham stated that he was unable to substantiate the charge, and asked that the prisoner be discharged.

CIVIL CABEP.

Louisson v. Davis. — Mr South for the plaintiff, Mr Harvey for the defendant. This caso was adjourned till tho 12th of September. Cosgrave and Co. v. Scanlan and Co.— Mr Harvey for tho plaiutiff, Mr Rees for the defendant Shunahan. This was a cuso brought by Mr Cosgrave, draper, Revell street, against three former partners Thomus Scanlau, Michael Shauahan, «^nd Patrick Gleeson, for L 33 for goods sold and delivered.— The goods had been ordered, and . bookod to Thomas Scanlau. Scanlan had formerly boeu trading in partnership with bhanahan and GHeeson, as partners in the firm of Shanahan and Co., at the Grey. In February last tho defendant Scanlan purchased the goods now sued for in his own name. In March the partners in Shanahan and. Co. dissolved partnership, and it was sought to fix the defendants Shanahan and trleesonwith the liability. Mr Harvey relied on the fact that the defendants had all been in partnership up to March, 1867.— Mr Rees contended that the defendants Shanahan and Gleeson were only responsible for goods ordered by or supplied to the firm of Shanahan and Cd. No witnesses were called on either side. Before the verdict was given Mr Harvey elected to take a nonsuit. The plaintiff was nonsuited accordingly with costs. Robertson v. Rowcliff. — Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr Reos for the defendant. — A case brought for wages. Plaintiff stated that he had been engaged by defendant on the Ist of April, 1867, at LI 10s per week to work in a claim at the Big Paddock. He had worked up till the 21st of July last. He had received L 45 on account, and now ■ought to recover tbe balance. The defence set up was that the defendant was merely acting as agent for a man named Robinson, aud that it was the man Robinson that put plaintiff on to work, and not the defendant. The defendant was merely acting as agent for Robinson. Mr Rees applied for a nonsuit. His Worship refused the nonsuit, and resorted his judgment in the case till the following day. The Court was thmi adjourned till elsv»u o'clock, next day,