Untitled

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 229, 25 April 1868, Page 2

Mr Graham is experiencing some of the bitters of candidature. Yesterday, in the Resident Magistrate's Court, he was sued for £lO 55., for printing and advertising in connection with his electoral contest, and a verdict for £8 was given against him. He has, apparently, been rather unfairly sold in the matter, for he stated that those who brought him forward agreed to pay his expenses, but have neglected to do so, and he has to undertake that duty himself. The plaintiff stated that he considered the candidature a joke, and Mr Graham very pertinently said that as he (Mr Reid) was one of the requisitionists who enjoyed it he should in justice pay for it. Mr Reid demurred to this view of the case, evidently considering he was entitled to both his amusement and his money, and as the Resident Magistrate coincided in his opinion, Mr Graham was ordered to pay and look pleasant.

From information received at the Police Camp last night, Ave regret to state that the unfortunate man, who was recently buried in a shaft at Addison's from which he was taking slabs, succumbed to the long imprisonment, and died yesterday afternoon. We learnt no further particulars, but presume that the inquest will be held to-day. A canoe carrying fascines for the wharf, capsized yesterday over the Nightingale's c able, and two men were thrown into the water, but escaped without further damage than al good ducking. The canoe floated away, but was subsequently recovered. The ladies of Westport have commenced collecting together a variety of articles for the purpose of holding a Gift Auction in aid of the funds of the Church and Parsonage. We have been given to understand that no articles will be rejected, and nothing will be considered either too old, toonew, too light, too heavy, too old-fashioned, or too expensive, or too cheap, but that donations of all kinds from a potato to a perambulator, will be equally acceptable. Our townspeople have t'ms an opportunity of clearing out old stock at a figure below cost price without the expense of advertising, of which we hope many will avail themselves. In the hands of the ladies, and with Mr Munro as auctioneer, who has placedhis services at their disposal, considering the praiseworthy object in view, the affair will doubtless prove highly remunerative as it well deserves to be. Due notice of the time and place for holding ( the auction will he given in our advertising column- at no distant date, and in the meanwhile we hope everyone will look up some article to present the ladies with when they call

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WESTPORT. Friday, April 24. (Before J. Giles, Esq.,fß.M.) AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. Michael Barrett was brought up on remand, charged with assaulting Angus M'Gillivray, chief officer of the steamer John Penn, on the night of the 19th instant. The prosecutor gave similar evidence to that taken on a previous occasion in reference to the prisoner and another man named Tripley endeavoring to force him overboard through a port hole into the sea, after the John Penn crossed the bar at Hokitika on her last upward trip. They were prevented from doing so by men standing near, otherwise the prosecutor must inevitably have been drowned, as the night was dark and a heavy sea was running.

Captain Carey, commander of the steamer John Penn, corroborated the prosecutor's evidence as the assault, as stated.

Wm. Arnold and John M'Kay gave similar evidence, but the former was evidently a reluctant witness, and his defective memory called down a well merited censure from the Bench.

The prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next sittings of the District Court.

CITIL CASES. Heid and Curie v. Graham. —This was an action to recover £lO ss, printing and advertising expenses in connection with the late election. Mr Beid, one of the plaintiffs, proved that the work charged for was done by the firm for and at the request of the defendant, and the charges were fair and reasonable. Defendant cross-examined the witness with a view to show that the amount was excessive, and that one item specially of 50 bills had been

ordered by others, and that he was not responsible. Witness denied that the charges were more than ordinary, or that he recognised any other person's responsibility for any part of the work performed.

Plaintiff complained that all the names on the requisition to him to stand for the Buller, had ,not been published, including that of the witness *hhnself. Mr Reid explained that though he had signed it, he did so, thinking with others that it was a joke, and he did not care about it appearing.

Defendant said that Mr Reid and others had asked him to dtand, and he replied that he had neither the ability nor the means to do so. Plaintiff then said that that they would not be hard upon him in the matter of expenses, but he was charging him the highest prices for everything, and had published the requisition twice instead of once as ordered. If he had signed the requisition in joke, he had a light to pay the expense of his joke. He asked for an adjournment in order to contradict much of the plaintiff's evidence.

The Magistrate declined to allow an adjournment, as defendant should have been prepared with his witnesses at the hearing. There were some items, however, which he could not allow, and he would give a verdict for £B. There tvere no appearances in the following cases :— Gullen, Brothers v. Law; Btughston v. Long; JBowden v. Hamilton.

Kavanagh v. Ann Connolly —Mr Tvler for the plaintiff; Mr Pitt for the defendant. This was an action to recover £l4 under the following circumstances. The plaintiff, with defendant and another woman named Kent, were drinking at the bar of the Adelphi, the plaintiff being by his own confession the worse for liquor. He had a purse in his possession containing £l4, which by his own consent, or at the least, without his resistance, defendant took possession of to keep till he was sober; subsequently he did get sober, but defendant declined to give up the money, on which he broke the door of her house in, and ultimately called in the assistance of detective Lambert. The latter, however, on hearing the particulars could not interfere, as the money was admitedly in defendant's possession by his own consent, and hence the present action. The defence was, in fact, that a large portion of the money was due for " board and lodging" an equivocal claim, the occupation of defendant being taken into consideration, and £3 was claimed for damage done to the door. Verdict for 10s, being the estimated injury to the door, the other setoff being disallowed,