RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 369, 6 October 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, sth October. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Peter Williams, a foreigner, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and also with committing a violent assault on Rachael M'llroy in the public street. Mr Tyler defended. The defendant was fined 10s for the first offence, and £1 and costs for the assault. During the hearing of the case, Inspector Franklyn took objection to Mr Tyler's conduct of the defence, and in commenting upon this afterwards, his Worship said he thought it should be observed as a proper rule, that when a prisoner was defended by counsel they should not both address the Court.

Mr Tyler submitted, that in some cases it was necessary for the prisoner to make a statement, which of course, was only taken for what it was worth. His Worship thought it objectionable for prisoner to make a statement and his counsel also to comment upon it, and in future the rule suggested would be adhered to.

CIVII, CASE. Thos. Jones v. Owen O'Neill -Mr Tyler, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated, that the present was an action for detenu to recover damages for the detention of a plough belonging to his

client. Eroin the plaintiff's statement, it appeared that he was a farmer at Orawaiti, and about the end of August, the defendant came and asked him for the lend of a plough. He agreed to let him have it at the rate of ten shillings per day, on condition of its being returned in two days, and on the 31st August it was taken away on a dray, defendant then paying £1 for two day's hire. The plough however, not being returned as promised, the plaintiff went over to defendant's place on the South Spit, and was then told that th« plough was broken, and he saw the plough stuck in a stump as if driven into it in ploughing. The defendant then said he had cautioned his ploughman to be careful of the stumps, but he promised to make good any loss the plaintiff might sustain, and to have the plough repaired in Nelson. The plough however, had not yet been returned, and subsequently the defendant disputed his liability. The plaintiff estimated the cost of a plough in Nelson at £lO and stated that in consequence of being thus deprived of the use of the implement, he had been unable to cultivate his land. It was in goorl order when lent to the defendant.

The defendant called his ploughman to prove that the plough was a bad one, and liable to be broken at any moment; but in cross-examination, the witness admitted that it was used for two days, and was only broken when run against a stump. The defendant urged in defence, the fact of his having done all in his power to get the plough repaired, and returned to the plaintiff. His "Worship ordered the plough to be immediately returned, or in default, defendant to pay plaintiff £6, and £5 as damagesforlossof time, together with costs.

Houston v. Broadbent Claim, £3 Bs, value of some gold delivered to defendant for the purpose of making a ring. Defendant admitted delivery but disputed the value, stating that the gold was only worth £2 10s. Verdict for £2 15s and costs.