RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 201, 23 March 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

(Before Chas. Broad, Esq., R.M.) Friday, March 20. Police v. Chas.Bray. —The defendant, who did not appear, was charged with a breach of the Licensing Ordinance in absenting himself from his licensed house. Constable Rhodes gave evidence as to absence, and stated that Bray afterwards told him he had nothing to do with the house (named the Welcome Inn), having transferred it to a woman called Dirty Mary. His Worship supposed it was another case of trying to evade the law, by taking out a license and then putting in a womau. Fined £lO, and license recommended to be cancelled. Archibald ILoore v. Michael Low. — The information stated that complainant was in bodily fear of his life from violent language used by the defendant on the 18th inst., but the evidence being contradictory the Magistrate did not consider there was sufficient cause to bind over the defendant to keep the peace, but ordered him to pay the costs. Poundv. Erskine. —Claim, £121256 d balance of account. Judgment by default for full amount and costs. Caspersen v. Davis. —Claim, £72 for work and labor done. Mr Home appeared for plaintiff, and called Wm. Caspersen, who stated he was engaged by defendant in July to do certain works on the Darkie's Terrace, and accordingly was there for twelve weeks, for which he now charged at the rate of £6 per week. He had never received any wages for that time. Cross-examined by Mr Davsi—Was employed by you. Have asked you for wages, and you wanted me to see Sweeny at Brighton, no rate of wages was mentioned when you engaged me, but I had been working elsewhere for £9 per week. Tou asked me to work Sweeney's share but I declined. For the defence, John King was called and he said he recollected going to Brighton with defendant abjut the last day of June, to see Sweeney as to who was to work his share, when the latter gave defendant an order to put the plaintiff, Caspersen, on to work his share.

By the Court—Always understood that plaintiff was working Sweeney's share. Plaintiff had often complained about Sweeney not sending him any money. Never heard him ask defendant for wages. "Wm. Davis, sworn Stated that Sweeney told him to put Caspersen on work in his place ; he himself never made any engagement with him. By the Court—The time of plaintiff's working is not disputed, but at that time only £5 per week was being paid. The Magistrate said—lf action had been brought in the Warden's Court, plaintiff could have recovered against

the claim, as however, it had been brought in the Resident-Magistrate's Court, he could elect to sue auy of the shareholders, and had chosen the present defendant. Judgment for amount claimed. Howe and Davis v. Caspersen —This was a claim for £25 on a promissorynote. Mr Davis having sworn to the hand-writing ; Mr Home on behalf of defendant admitted the debt, as being due to Eowe. Judgment by consent for plaintiffs and costs.