RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WELLINGTON.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVIII, Issue 1962, 26 September 1863, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WELLINGTON.

Tuesday, 22nd September, 1863. (Before H. St. Hill, Esq., R.M.) Luke Harris, George Young and Peter Jackson, was severally fined ss, 10s and 5s and 4s costs for drunkenness. John Smith and Henry Ray Raymond were charged with drunkenness, and fighting in the streets, Raymond was fined 5s and costs 6s 6d- Smith was fined ss. I. E. Fealherstoo r. John Hastings — An action for £43 10s Od the balance for passage money from England to New Zealand due to the Provincial Government ; judgment exparte for amount and costs, 15s. YVm. Tonks v Alex. Pilmer and Win. Andrews — a claim of £71 9s 9d for brick and lime supplied by contract for the building of the Bank of New Zealand. The plaintiff admitted that the contract was incomplete, therefore the Court advised the plaintiff to submit to be non-suited with costs, 21s. George Copeland v John Plimuier and John Haslem — claim of £34 8s 9d for work done by contract in laying down a private tram road at the. Upper Hutt, for removing timber from the bush to the saw mills. The plaintiff had used the road for conveying the materials for the formation of the road and therefore considered that it was in working order. The plnintiff's brother said the same, but he had never worked at a tram road before, and did not know what was meant by ballasting a road or tram road, and thought the road might be worked for a month or more. John Haslem one of the defendants said he had paid £4 for finishing a part of the road, that should have been done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not completed the other part, and no animal can go along the road without the risk of breaking its legs. The plaintiff had left dead trees on the line, which were liable to fall and endanger life. The road has not been used except for the formation of it. John Welkins a laborer said when the plaintiffs left the work as finished the road was j not fit to use, it required ballasting, saw dust would have been sufficient ballast. The Court was of opinion that the plaintiff had not completed or fulfilled the contract, the plaintiff therefore submitted to be non-suited with 15s costs.