CHARLESTON NEWS.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 222, 17 April 1868, Page 3

CHARLESTON NEWS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, CHARLESTON. Before Chas. Beoad, Esq., R.M. D. Brandon was found guilty of assaulting Edward Anglin, the night watchman, and sentenced to a fine of £5, or one month's imprisonment; (half the amount of fine to go to the watchman as compensation for tearing Ms coat.

Lorentine Monter was charged with housebreaking on the premises of Wm. Kennedy. The defendant, a Frenchman, was represented by Mr O'Neill and Mr Mabille acted as interpreter. It appeared from the complainant's •statement, that the prisoner was owner of the house tenanted by complainant. Mr O'Niell submitted that the information could not be sustained, there being clearly no felony in the case. Information dismissed with costs.

Matheio Broion, charged with using and insulting language in the presence of a constable, was fined forty shillings. Henry Khofal, not answering to his hail, Constable Rhodes stated he was unavoidably absent on account of the •death of his wife, and the hearing of the charge was accordingly adjourned for one week. J. W. Evans was £ned £lO and -costs, for being unlawfully absent from his licensed house, the (Golden Age Hotel.) On an application from Mr Home, •a rehearing was granted for Friday next, of the case, Kennedy and Heigh■way v. Johnston, decided a few days ;ago. Harold v. Dempster —The plaintiff in this case claimed £5 as value of a •dog wrongfully kept possession of by defendant: the evidence, however, was remarkably contradictory. Plaintiff swore he bred the dog himself, and several distinguishing marks it bore, while the defendant on the other hand, brought forward a man who swore that he was the breeder of the dog. At the request of the Magistrate, the dog which was said to be "first over the way," was sent for, and along with another, very like it, was produced in Court, and identified by the plaintiff and three witnesses hrought forward to confirm his version of the story. His "Worship said it was evidently a case of mistaken identity, and going by the greatest weight of evidence, ordered that the dog ■should be given up to plaintiff, or the sum claimed be paid. Ohas. Mirfin v. Klein—The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £l2 as two weeks' salary, in consequence of being dismissed from certain employment without due notice. Mr Kees, having on behalf of defendant, raised a nonsuit point which was overruled, the plaintiff stated that about eighteen months ago, he was engaged in Hokitika by Brown, Klein, and Neale, to go to Brighton and other places, nothing was then said about salary; but when Mr Neale arrived at Brighton with the plant, arranged with him to draw at the rate of £6 per week. At expiration of two months, Mr Neale went to Hokitika and sold his interest in the paper, to Brown and Klein. He returned as manager for them, and told plaintiff his services were no longer required. A number of witnesses connected with the printing business were called to prove that it was customary in the trade to give a fortnight's notice, before discharging employee's. Mr Eees applied for a nonsuit on the ground of informality—the summons being against the defendant, as trading under the style of Brown, Klein, and Co., whereas according to his own showing, the firm was Brown, Klein, and Neal. Plaintiff, in reply, urged that he was dismissed by Neale acting as manager for Brown and Klein, who had taken over the business, and was responsible for all liabilities.

The Magistrate however, held that the objection raised was good, and nonsuited the plaintiff without costs. Klein v. Neale —Mr Rees appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Homo for the defendant. The sum claimed was 6s, for sundry charges, expenses,

and damages sustained in consequence of defendants declining to acknowledge a certain purchase of property made by plaintiff, acting as his agent. Mr Home objected to the vague and indefinite character of the bill of particulars, but the case was nevertheless gone into on its merits. The evidence however, failed to show that Mr Neale had given Mr Klein any authority to act as his agent in the transaction, and the latter was nonsuited.