RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 262, 3 June 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Jujte 2. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E,M.) There were no cases on the police sheet. ASSAULT. John Lei/don was complained against for having on the 26th inst., unlawfully beaten one Neil Mulholland. Mr Tyler appeared for the defendant. The complainant, a packer, said— That on the day complained of he was at the South Spit, and went there to cart some timber. He was told that he might have the use of a dray there, and when he was in the act of taking it defendant came up. A man named Fellows, agent for Shanahan, who owned the dray, gave him permission to take it. "When he was putting his horse in, Leydon refused to let him have it, and pushed the horse over the shaft of the dray, and tumbled him. Witness then pushed him away, when defendant got hold of him by the jacket and pulled it over his head, at the same time striking him repeatedly in the face.

By Mr Tyler—Defendant said that the dray was in his charge, and witness notwithstanding persisted in putting his horse to. He did not strike defendant when he pushed him, or do more than push him away. Frank Griffiths had been subpoened, but did not appear. Mr Tyler submitted that no offence had been shown, as according to plaintiff's own evidence he had been the aggressor. The defendant said that the complainaut attempted to take a dray away that had been left in his charge, and on his refusing to allow it to go he, defendant, pushed and 3truck him, when the fight took place.

A witness named M'Lachlan was called, and corroborated the defendant's statement as to complainant striking defendant first. The Magistrate said it was quite clear that defendant first peaceably objected, and that complainant first commenced the assault, and the case was dismissed; complainant to pay half the defendant's costs, £1 4s 6d. Gay v. WLarcn. —No appearance. Case dismissed.

Clune v. Burhidge. —This case had been adjourned from the previous day in order to allow the magistrate time to consider his judgment. The magistrate said that this was an action to recover £3l 3s. 3d., for goods supplied on a written guarantee. Defen-

dant admitted the order, but disputed his liability for more than the day when the goods were given. The only question was how long was that guarantee to last ? At the time he thought there was prima facie proof on the general evidence of the plaintiff, that the guarantee was intended to extend beyond that time, for the defendant had been informed of the amount due and had not made any objection or said that he was no longer liable. On the contrary, he made a remark that the parties who had the goods were doing well and were well able to pay the amount. Afterwards it turned out that they were not doing well, and defendant then repudiated the guarantee. He (the magistrate) could not avoid the conclusion that this was an afterthought of his, and that at the time of giving the guarantee the defendant did not intend to restrict it the day it was dated, but subsequently hit on this defence. The judgment therefore would be for the amount claimed with costs. Munro v.Millen. —This was an action to recover £7 odd, commission and expenses on the sale of the Ada schooner. Plaintiff said that he was engaged by defendant to dispose of the stranded schooner Ada, and that he duly advertised her, and took other steps to effect a sale by auction. Prior to this coming on the defendant instructed Messrs Robertson and Co., auctioneers, to sell the vessel, which they did for £63, and repudiated the engagement with him. Por the defence it was stated that no definite instructions had been given to Mr Munro, but that some conversation on the subject had taken place, and for any expense that Mr Munro had been put to £2 103 was paid into Court. The Magistrate considered that a bona fide claim had been proved, and gave a verdict for £3 3s, in addition to that paid into Court. Mr Munro intimated his intention of giving the amount of the verdict to the Westport Hospital.