RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WELLINGTON.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXI, Issue 2433, 27 October 1866, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WELLINGTON.

Thuesday, Ooxobee 25. [Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.] DBTJNKENNESS. Patrick Ryan alias Lennon, charged with this offence, was lined 20s, or in default to be committed for seven days. THREATENING LANGUAGE. Henry Poulten was charged by Mr. George, Messrs. Kennard's Agent in Wellington, with using threatening and abusive language to him. Complainant said that defendant, who had been sent from England to work on tho new wharf, but had been discharged on account of bad behaviour, came to his office in a state of intoxication on tho previous afternoon and demanded a character. On being refused he bocamo very violent and used threatening language, wanting to fight witness. Mr. Beard gave corroborative evidence. Defendant was fined 20s, or to bo committed for seven days. Friday, October 26. [Before J. C. Crawford Esq., R.M.] MORSB TBESPASS. Edward Dixon, charged with allowing a horse to wander at largo in the public thoroughfare, was fined one shilling and costs. ASSAULT.. Three Maoris named Hare Parata, Tamihana, and Wereta Ngapuhi, were charged with assaulting Kupa Mahuki. Wereta Ngapuhi was also charged with assaulting Horina Kipa, the wife of Kupa, From tho evidence, as interpreted by Mr. Baker, it appeared that the assault arose through one of the defendants wishing to take away the child of complainants. A great deal of violent language was used, but no great harm was done. Hare Parata was discharged ; Tamihana was discharged with a caution, and Wereta Ngapuhi, the most violent, was fined ten shillings and costs in each case, or, in default, ninety-six hours' iniprifonment. , The fines were paid. cryiii oases. John Martin v. E. Bannister — Judgment for £1 16s paid into Court. Same t. H. Carter— Claim for £5 for 500 palings. Tho defence was, that tho defendant did not order tho palings, although he used thorn, but ho was a contractor, and had not to find the material. Adjourned tiJl next day. OVEN CASE. Bain and Buchanan v. Hart — Claim for £20, for falling of an oven, built by defendant for plaintiffs. Mr. Borlase appeared for plaintiffs. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that he had granted a rehearing in this case, but did not wisli it to be taken as a precedent. In the case a 9 orgimilly heard it was swovn that defendant had undertaken to complete the job, and had stated that it would stand for fifteen years, and had authorised the removal of tho batch on the Wednesday. Two days after the oven fell in, and there was little evidenco to show that the defendant had done tho work properly or was onty a day laborer and no*: a contractor. In the rehearing, it was shown, that tho work was not done properly, and that defendant, who had said that he was a competent builder of ovens, allowed the batch to be removed before the mortar could settle. The question was who was responsible for the disaster. Was the defendant a contractor or only a day laborer, and under the orders and superintendence of tho plaintiffs. By tho evidence it appeared that no contract was made to erect the oven for a specific time, that one plaintiff was constantly overlooking the work and making suggestion, and that defendant was to be paid daily wages. His Worship therefore- gave judgment for defendant. ■ Costß of re-hearing remitted.