RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XV, Issue 1408, 24 February 1860, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

H'uit. Wednesday, Ist February, 1860. (Before Bingham Arthus Feeaed, Esq , E.M.) Tbe Resident Magistrate held his Court at the Hutt, aud disposed of nine cases for debt, and three causes for damages. Wellington. (Before H. St. Hill, Esq., R.iVf.) Mary Ann Monaghan and Rosannah Maria Hilton were charged with drunkenness, the former was sentenced to seven da) r s imprisonment, and the latter four days in the common gaol at Wellington. Tonks v. Kiugi. — An action to recover the sum of £7 1 6s. 6d. for goods sold and delivered. Adjourned to the Bth instant. Cook v. A. Baker.— An action to recover the sum of £7 ] 25., for goods sold and delivered. Settled out of Court. Thursday, 2nd February, 1860. The Court was occupied nearly all day in forming the Jury List for 1860-1. Friday, 3rd February, 1860. (Before Bingijam A. Feuahd, Esq , R.M.) Stephensoa v. Burke. — Defendant was charged with having assaulted complainant. Defendant was bound over to keep the Peace. E Hope v. Marsh. — Defendant was charged with having assaulted complainant, who is a police officer, whilst in the execution of his duty. Fined £3 and costs. Hoggard v. Renner. — An information was filed by plaintiff, who is the post-master at Wellington, against the defendant, who is the commander of the Wouga Wonga, and carries the mail to Napier, for a breach of the New Zealand Post Office Act, 1858. Fined £5 and costs. Saturday, 4lh February, 1860. Margaret Smith was charged with breach of prison regulations. Reprimanded and discharged. Thomas Bills was -charged with drunkenness and using abusive language. Reprimanded and discharged on payment of costs. Monday, 6th February, 1860. Benj -until Robinson «vas charged with drunkenness. Fined ss. 'Tuesday, Ith February, 1860. Florence v. Brown. — An action to recover the sura of £23, the amount of a medical bill. Defendant put in a sot off to a larger amount, and judgment was given in favor of the defendant fur £2 2s. (sd. Reid v. Suisted. — An action to recover the sum of £7 2s. 10£ d., for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for amount and costs. Johnson v. Suisted, Sahlin v. Suisted, Martin v. Suisted. — These actions were all heard ex parte, and judgment given for £20, £<8 ss. 6d.., and £20, and costs. Taylor v. Monaghan. — An action to -recover the sum of £2 10s. 6d. Judgment for the amount and costs. Mason v. Monaghan. — An action to recover the sum of £5 13s. 3d. Judment for amount and cists, Heritage v. Roberts.— An action to recover the sum of £5 125., for breaking in a borse. Judgment for amount and costs. Armstrong v. Rumble. —An action to recover the swm of £1 10s. for saddlery. Judgment bj consent for amount. Scott v. Pita —An action to recover the sum of 18s. for bread. Settled ont of Court. George Single v. John Martin:— This was an action to recover the sum of £e> for the drawings of defendant's house in Ghuznee street. Plaintiff proved the work done, and called Mr. Carter as to the value of the plans. Mr. Carter stated that the amount claimed was he though il over charged. The defendant was sworn, and stated that there was no agreement as to payment for the plans, but that plaintiff was to superintend the works, and to receive a per centage upon the amount of the building, and left Wellington to go to the Ahuriri, and he, defendant, employed Mr. Carter. Plaintiff denied positively that there was any such agreement, and Chat nothing was said as to superintendence of the works in question. Judgment for defendant, with costs 16s. 6d. Wednesday, Bth February, 1860. George Pellet, William Bennett, and John Collyer, charged by John William B. Darke, master of the Robert Small fora breach of the Merchant Seaineii's Act. Sentenced to twelve weeks imprisonment with hard labour, and to forfeit 24 days pay each, and costs. Thursday, 9th February, 1860. Florance v. Collyev. — An action to recover the sum of £o 145., for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff not in attendance, case dismissed. Crawford v. Wilton. — An action to recover the sum of £10 18s., and costs. Parties called, no appearance. Valentioe v. Bannister. — An action to recover the sum of £16 175., for goods sold and delivered. Case withdrawn. Wiltou v. Grimstoue. — An action to recover the sum of £18 ss. 7d. for meat supplied. Judgment by consent for amount. Crawford v. White. — An action to recover the sum of £12 14s. Bd. for goods sold and delivered. Summons not served. F,iday, 10th February, 1860. Ann Parker charged with drunkenness. Fined 20s. and costs. William Neil was charged by Thomas McLellun • with having stolen a quantity of weaving apparel. Charge dismissed. 'luesday, 14th February, 1860. Cotter* V. Bannister. — An action to recover the sum of £4 6s. 6d., for goods supplied. Judgmeut by consent. Churchill v. Bryant. — An action to recover the sura of £3 os. 3d., for goods supplied. Judgment by consent for aiuonnt. William B. Rhodes v. Matthew Cook.— - An action to recover the sum of £10. Judg uient for amount and costs.

Tettley v. Duck, Tetley v. Beunett.— Actions to recover the sums of £6 I Is. fO£d., and £\ 12s. lid., for meat supplied. Judgment by consent in the former case for amount, the latter stands ovesr till the 2 1st inst. Wright v. Short. — An action of damages for cattle trespass. Parties called, no appearance. Sarah Slarks charged willi drunkenness. Fined ss. Thursday, I6t/i February, 18fiO. Stephenson v. Renall. — An action to recover the sum of £3 ss. 6d., for goods sold and delivered. Amount and costs paid into Court. Stephenson v. Abbott. — An action to recover the sum of £2 16s. lOd. for goods sold and de livered. Settled out of Court. Stephenson v. Rhoades. — An action co recover the sum of 9s. 9d. Plaintiff not in attendance, case dismissed. Armstrong v. F. A. Duncan.— An action to recover the sum of £9 Is, for saddlery. Judgment by consent for amount. Johns v. Enos Hughes. — This was an action of detinue brought by one of the passengers of the Viscount Sandoh, against the defendant, who is the master, in consequence of the latter detailing plaintiffs personal luggage until a certain promissary given by plaintiff to defendant for his passage to New Zealand, was paid. Case adjourned. Ougan v. James Cotter. — An action to recover the sum of £6 4s. 6cl, for tbe maintenance of defendants wife and two children. Summons not served. Friday, \7th February, 1860. Charles Stent charged witli a breach of the Constabulary Force Ordinance, having left his horse and cart standiug in the public streets. Case discharged on payment of costs. Johns v. Hughes — (Adjourned case.) An action of detinue, defendant having detained plaintiff's luggage to secure the due payment of a promissary note given by plaintiff for his passage to Wellington. Advised to land the goods and deliver them. Clarke v. Hunter. — An aclion to recover the sum of £14 15s. 10d., being the nnimint paid to defendent for the use of plaintiff. Case dismissed. Poad v. Loxley. — An action to recover the sum of £12. Case adjourned. Wright v. Hughes, Lowry v. Hughes. — Defendant who is the Chief iVTate of the Viscount Sandon, was charged with having as saulted complainants, who are seamen belonging to the same ship. Defendant was fined in the sum of £o in each case. Barry v. Richard Smith. — Prisoner was charged with a felony, aud was remanded till Friday, the 241h inst.. Monday, 20th February, 1860. Luxford v. Hooper. — Defendant was charged with a breach of the Impounding Act. Settled out of Court. Dowdeswell v. Earp — Defendant was charged with having assaulted complainant. Parties called, no appearance. Thomas Liddy charged with drunkenness Fined os.