Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Wednesday March 5. .(Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., R.M.) Peter O'Lachlan, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was fined 10s. Maria Fox, proprietress of the Addison's Creek store, was charged with using abusive and insulting language to the police while in the execution of their •duty. The •defendant did not appear. Constable Paul stated that he called on the defendant to see her business license, and she called him an insulting beast, and ordered him out of the house. She also said that if he did not go she would put him out, and that all the constables on Addison's Flat took " tip." The offence having been fully proved, Dr Giles fined the defendant 40s. James Flaherty, charged with resisting the police, was fined 20s. WARDEN'S COURT. HALPIN V. BRADLEY. The plaintiff sued defendant for £lO damages, caused by the defendant throwing his tailings on tho plaintiff's tramway, thereby causing a great •delay in his work. The plaintiff stated he had several times asked the defendant if he intended to remove the tailings; and the defendant said he did not. In consequence of the obstruction he was prevented from bringing heavy timber from the bush winch could not be conveyed by hand, and in consequence had been compelled to discontinue his work. Defendant stated he had taken up his claim long before the plaintiff's tramroad was made, which had crossed his ground, and moreover the tramway had not been used for the last four weeks, a portion of it having been taken up by the plaintiff, and used for firewood. He did not think it necessary to give the plaintiff notice that he intended to place his tailings there, as he believed that he did not intend to use it again. Dr Giles said that notice ought to have been given, as no doubt an obstruction had been caused ; but as the plaintiff had not shown how he had sustained the amount of damages sued for, ho should give a verdict for the plaintiff for 10s and costs, with the understanding that the tramway should be taken in another direction.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WEST18680309.2.16

Bibliographic details

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 189, 9 March 1868, Page 3

Word Count
353

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT. Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 189, 9 March 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT. Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 189, 9 March 1868, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert