RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 161, 5 February 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Febbuaby 4. Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., E.M. Dbukk and DisoBDEBLY.-Jfaryaretf Scanlan, of Addison's Plat, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and having no visible means of support. Dr Giles stated as this was her first offence, he should not convict her under the Vagrancy Act, but would inflict a fine of 20s or twenty-four hours' imprisonment, hoping that this would have the effect of making her more respectable for the future.— Henry Young was also charged with being drunk and disorderly, and with using obscene language. He said that he had only partaken of two glasses of liquor, so that the quality more than the quantity was to blame for his disgracing himself- The magistrate sentenced him to four days imprisonment with hard labor. — Jane Robinson appeared to answer a charge of being

in a " groggy" state between one and two o'clock in the morning, and as she could not give satisfactory explanation for keeping au untimely hour, was santenced to pay a fine of 20s or imprisonment for twenty four hours.

FREEMAN V. HARNEY. This was an adjourned case to enable plaintiff to bring witnesses to prove the value of a stable, the alleged property of plaintiff. Mr Pitt appeared for plaintiff. Mr Campbell for defendant. The whole case turned on the right of plaintiff to receive rent from defendant, as the defendant claimed to hold under Mr Whayler, and brought a lease of certain land from plaintiff to Whaylen into Court, which the plaintiff's lawyer however endeavored to show did not include the disputed stable.

The plaintiff did not seem very clear on the point, and was in doubt whether the lease was actually one he had granted at all, though he admitted receiving rent from Whaylen for the property mentioned in such lease up to November last. Mr Pitt tried hard to convince the Magistrate that the defendants claim to the stable was a mere pretenee and sham, in opposition to defendant's counsel, who shewed that the case was one of disputed title and not within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Magistrate thought it was a case for careful consideration, and reserved judgment until 10 o'clock this day.

William Hildretli v. John Orate. — This was an action on an lOTF for <£lo given by defendant some time in the year 1863. As the matter was one of oath against oath, and as the plaintiff did not prove the case to the satisfaction of the Court, the Magistrate ordered a non-suit to be recorded.

WARDEN'S CASES. Charnleigh and I?arty sued Randall and Partg for illegal possession of a claim ou the Caledonial Lead which defendants had jumped. Mr Tyler appeared for the defendants. One of Charnleigh's party conducting their own case. The defence was principally based upon the fact that although Charnleigh and party took up the claim on the Friday ; no work had been done up to the time when Randall's party took possession; objection was also made by the defence to the fact of Charnleigh and party having pegged off the extended area of 60 feet each man; and it was also proved that the defend- : ants had . commenced sinking a shaft soon after taking possession. The case occupied a very long time, and a good many witnesses were examined on both sides, but the Magistrate decided that although unreasonable time had been taken by the plaintiffs before commencing work, it was prudent to allow some latitude in these cases, and that after deducting two men's shares (whose miners rights were not found in order) he should give judgment for plaintiffs for four mens' ground. "With regard to the question whether 45 or 60 feet of ground was to be taken per man, he thought that although there was nothing in the Rules of the Goldfields to warrant him in ordering them to take up the 60 feet; he thought that as the sinking in the adjoining claim was over fifty feet that they might do so, but it would be at their own risk.