RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

West Coast Times, Issue 631, 2 October 1867, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

♦ (Before Gr. G-. MtzGerald, Esq., E.M.) Tuesday, Octobee 1. Dbunk and Incapable. — Hugh Henry was fined 10s or twenty-four hours imprisonment. Detjnk and Disoedebly. — Peter Steven was fined LI or forty-eight hours imprisonment. <> Lunacy. — Catherine O'Keefe, arrested on a charge of being of unsound mind,was remanded till the 4th inst. for medical examination, by Drs Eyley and Beswick. Assault. — In the case of Forster v. Perry, adjourned from the 30th September, Mr Rees, who appeared for the defendant, called Mr Jenkins, who deposed to having seen the complainant and defendant on the day in question (the 22nd Sept.) He, witness, was about fifty or sixty yards off when they met in Fitzher-bert-street, Mrs Forster was carrying a bundle of clothes, and as she passed Mrs Perry she knocked, a little child down walking besidethe defendant. MrsPerrypushed the complainant to one side, but did not strike her. Mr Foster retaliated by striking the defendant a slight blow on the shoulder. Cross-examined by complainant — Did not see defendant knock you down. ,His Worship dismissed the information . Jid remarked that he did not for- iiT^apv'nt believe that the defendant had- struck the complainant. There appeared to be ■some ill feeling existing between the complainant and. defendant. His Worship further added that he believed the complainant had told some consJ^rable falsehoods. «gbancy.— rThomas Brockelsly, alias Wiffuns, alias Shackles, and "Harvey H<untley, were charged under Section iv., clause 12 of the Vagrant Act. The clause states that " any suspected person or reputed thief frequenting any river, canal, navigable stream, dock or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenueleading thereto or any street, highway or place adjacent withintent to commita felony, shall beliable to imprisonment in any gaol with hard labor for any time not exceeding one year." Detective Dyer was called, and stated that at about one o'clock on the morning of the Ist instant, whilst on duty in Revell street, he observed the two prisoners take hold of a drunken man — Hugh Henry — and offer to take him to a-re-spectable hotel. They proceeded up Ilevell street, taking Henry witH 'them, followed by the detective. The two prisoners took Henry to the door of the White Horse Hotel — a house frequented by thieves. Tho wpsttess,hero interfered and requested the to go about their business.^Senry, on being questioned, denied^Qaving seen the two prisoners.^beipler 5 ' They were strangers to him. on the advice of the detectivey Henry went away up Revell street North, towards his home, Shortly afterwards the prisoners followed in the same direction. Some time afterwards the witness, accompanied by Sergeant Blanc, followed the prisoners, and observed them take Henry across Revell street into an open space. Prisoner Williams shortly afterwards issued from a right-of-way, in which the witness found Henry lying on his face. The detective stated that he had known the prisoner for some time ; Williams had lately been discharged from gaol; Huntley was constantly in the company of convicted thieves. On searching the prisoners at the watch-house, a large sheath-knife was found concealed in Huntley's coat, and on Williams a piece of candle and a box of matches. A few unimportant questions were put the witness by the prisoners. His Worship discharged the prisoner Huntley, with a caution. Williams, who stated that he wished to subpoena witnesses, was remanded till the following day, to enable him to do so. CIVIL CASES. Lockhart v. Macdonald. — A claim for Ll4 13s 6d, balance of account due for goods supplied by plaintiff to the defendant. Mr Rees for the plaintiff. Thomas M'Auly was called, and stated that the goods had been ordered in the name of Strathan and Co. The witness was under the impression that the defendant was Strahan, and always addressed him by that name. It was only when the last payment was made by the defendant that witness became aware of the fact that the defendant's name was Macdonald. Witness had made enquiries, but was unable to find out anything about the firm of Strahan and Co. Timothy Stevenson and Thomas Duncan were called, and corroborated the evidence given by the former witness,. Defendant stated that he was an insolvent. He was engaged to manage the business of Strahan and Co., and had purchased the goods on their account. Cross-examined by Mr Rees — The firm of Strahan and Co. consists of Sarah Jane Strahan and Henry Bates. Witness was omployed at a salary of L 5 9«p week, An agreement between Stra..

Kan and Co. and the witness was drawn up on the 13th of June. (Witness produced the deed of partnership between Sarah Jane Strahan and Henry Bates, dated 12th June.) The deed of partnership had been given witness to assist him in his defence. The firm of Strahan and Co. was in existence before the 12th of June, but no deed of partnership had been drawn up. Sarah Jane Strahan at times goes by the name of Mrs Macdonald. She is not witnesses' wife, but resides in the same house as he does. By the Cotirt — Sarah Jane Strahan and witness are not living as man wife. Henry Bates deposed, that he had been in business in Hokitika. Witness knew Macdonald. Ho had been working for witness for the last eight months. Witness purchased Macdonald's share in the business, arid he worked it for Kirn - He gave Macdonald LSO for his share. Macdonald was in the receipt of a salary of L4aweek,and n"otLs. His Worship remarked that the whole transaction so far as Macdonald was concerned looked very like what is commonly called a swindle. Judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs. Grete v. Cameron — Plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant the' sum: of L 5 under the following circumstancs. Plaintiff stated that he sold defendant a store, but as he was unable to pay for it he took it back. On entering the store afterwards he ascertained that some shelving and a counter had been removed, and he now sought to recover from the defendant the value of them L 5. Cross-examined by defendant — You authorised a person to take possession for you. The defendant stated that lie had purchased the store from the plaintiff, but as he was unable to take up a promissory note he had given in payment for the store, a person who was acting in plaintiff's behalf presented witnesses' promissory note for payment, consented to take it back. Witness never took possession of the store after he had bought it, he left for the Buller. He was away for a month, and on lv's return he examined the store, at that time there was no counter or shelving in it. The Magistrate in giving judgment stated that it had not been shown that possession had been given to defendant, He had not visited the store for a month after the purchase, and there was no evidence to show that the shelving and counter had not been removed previous to plaintiff selling the store to the defendant. Drummond v. Farmer — A claim for L 7 6s, being L 7 for labor, hnd 6s for goods purchased by the plaintiff for the defendant. The defendant had filed a set off, amounting to LlB 13s for goods supplied and money advanced to plaintifts's wife by defendant. His worship gave judgment for the defendant. Olsen v. Oakes — A claim for L 7 19s for wages, as seaman on board the Flying Cloud. Judgment was given for L 6 9s with costs. Cumming v. De Wolf— Adjourned till the 2nd inst. Russel v. Stapleton — A claim for L 3 13s, balance due for goods supplied. Plaintiff consented to a judgement for the amount less L 2, due himJby plaintiff for two days work. Judgment was given for LI 13s with costs. Greite v. Ross — Amount of promissory note. Judgment for amount claimed. Lls, with costs. # /J Thomson v.. Bennet — A claim Cfor L2sl3s 6d for "goods supplied. It apE eared that the defendant was living with is brother, andf that -the goods were charged in plaintiff's books to Michael Barnett, and not to defendant. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Thomon v. Scott (Master of the William and.,: Julia) — Plaintiff sought to recover/^rpm the defendant, the sum of L 4 being commission at the rate of five percent on eighty pounds, amount of the charter of the William and Julia. Mr Rc'es for the defendant. The plaintiff stated thajt he had agreed with the defendant that he should be paid at the rate of 5 per cent on the amount of the charter. Ho was the means of Mr Hungerford chartering the William and Julia to go to the Grey for a cargo of coals. — A witness was called to prove that five per cent was the usual charge. — Mr Hungerford stated that the plaintiff was instrumental in his chartering the vessel. It was through his intervention. — The defendant stated that he had agreed to allow the defendant fife per cent on a charter to Kaiapoi or the Pakihi. Plaintiff had failed to obtain a charter to either of those places. Negotiations were opetfed with Churches and Ching, but they fell through. Plaintiff then told defendant that he thought he would be able to give him a charter to the Grey, but ho would have to consult his partner.Hetheu ilealt with him as a principal, and not as an agent. Mr Hungerford was examined, and stated that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff was no of his, and that the charter money was paid out of his (witness's) pocket. No mention of plaintiff's name was made in tho agreement for the charter of the vessel. His Worship stated that there was no doubt the defendant obtained the charter through the plaintiff. The percentage, it was shown, was the usual rate. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs* Lampton v. Regan. — A claim for L 4 16s. for wages as a carpenter — six days, at sixteen ahillings per day, Defendant did not deny that tho plaintiff had done some work for him, but what he had taken six days to do might have been done in two. He had heard that the defendant had said that it was the first job he had in Hokitika, and he " meant' to put in a week over it." His Worship slated that if plaintiff worked too slowly he might, if he had thought proper, have discharged liim after the first day. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock next day. — — IIIIMM — ■!!!■

Discontent. — Some people are never content with their lot, let what will happen. Clouds and darkness are over their heads, alike whether it rain or shine. To them every incident is an accident, and every accident a calamity. Even when thoy have their own way they like it no better than your way, and, indeed, consider their most voluntary acts as matters of compulsion. A child about three years old was crying because his mother had shut the parlor door. " Poor thing," said a neighbor, compassionately, "you have shut the child out." " It's all the same to him," said the mother ; "ho would cry if I called him in and then shut tho door. It's a pecu- . liarity of that boy, that if ho is loft rather suddenly on eithor sido of a door, ho considers himself Bhut out, and rebels, accordingly." Thevo aro oldw children who taka tlia mm view of things,