RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 477, 13 March 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT

Friday, Maech 9. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) John Sheldon was charged with assaulting Henry Davis. Mr Pitt, for the defendant, admitted the assault, under circumstances of provocation. Mr Tyler, for the complainant, stated that the defendant went into the Postoffice Hotel, when the complainant was inside the bar. A conversation ensued between them and some persons present. The argument became rather hot, and ended in the defendant seizing the complainant by the hair of the head, and pulling him out of the bar. In the evening the defendant wanted to settle the matter, and, the complainant refusing to do so, he again became very violent and abusive in his language.—The Magistrate suggested that, as the offence was admitted, some compromise might be made, and Mr Tyler, having stated that the complainant would be satisfied if the expenses were paid, the Magistrate imposed the nominal fine of £l, with expenses. CIVIL CASES. J. Martin v. O'Neill.—A claim of £33 for damage done to the plaintiff's fence and crops on the island in the Buller river, by the cattle of the defendant, a milk-man at Packers' Point. Mr Pitt was for the plaintiff; Mr Tyler for the defendant. The plaintiff had no lease for the ground, but produced a receipt for rent, and had given notice by advertisement under the Cattle Trespass Act. Mr Tyler contendedthat thetitlewas insufficient. Mr Pitt urged that mere possession was sufficient title against a wrongdoer, and the Magistrate was of opinion that the fact of occupation and any color of title was enough against a mere trespasser. That was so in the case of goods and chattels, mere possession giving a person the right to recover. Some very trifling flaw in the title might alter the whole ownership of the land, but the principle of going into details could not be admitted in a case of this kind.—Evidence was given as to the character and extent of the trespass, and the Magistrate gave judgment for £8 with costs

Gill t. Kelly.—A claim of £l, the value of a window broken by the defendant throwing a stone through it. The parties live at the Caledonian Terrace. On the night of a ball, the defendant, on her way home, called at the complainant's, and when found fault with for disturbing one of the persons in the house, made a threat and went outside, shortly after which a stone came through the window. The defendant denied that she had committed the act imputed to her, but the Magistrate considered that the weight of evidence was in favor of the plaintiff, and gave judgment for the amount claimed.

Fbidat, Mabch 12. Michael Organ was charged, on the information of Constable Neville, and under the Juries Act, with refusing to give hiß name and to answer eertain questions connected with the jury list. The defendant admitted his refusal, but said he understood that some of the police knew his name, and that he was ignorant of it being an offence. The Magistrate said that ignorance was no excuse. He must have known, when the Constable asked the questions, that he should have answered them. As this was the first case of the kind, he was sorry he could not inflict a small fine. The Act fixed the fine at £o, and he had no power to reduce it. He had no doubt that this had been done with deliberation by the Legislature, because it would be a very serious matter if persons were allowed to refuse to give their names to the police when making out the jury list. He should certainly, in the first case, have imposed a small fine, but he had no alternative. —The defendant was, accordingly, fined .£5.