POLICE COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3246, 8 July 1871, Page 3

POLICE COURT.

Friday, July 7. (Before J. O. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. John Farr, for this offence, was fined 10a ; or, in default, to be committed for 24 hours DRUNKENNESS AND VA&RANCY. Mary Ann M'Gregor, who had been arrested the previous dny in Maori Row in a shameful state of exposure and drunkenness, was fined 208 ; in default, to be committed for 48 hours. INDECENCY AND VAGRANCY. William Donnell, brought up on this charge, pleaded guilty to drunkenness, but denied being a vagrant, as he had only just oome into town from tho country, where he had been working for some time back. Prisoner had no recollection of the other charge. Sentenced to one months' imprisonment, with hard labor. Mury Gough, who had been in the company of the last prisoner, waß brought up on similar charges, and as she had only the like plea to advance agninsb the evidonoe of th« arresting constable and a witness, she also was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. William Morris, had been arrested in Dixon Btreet the previous day in a state of drunkenness, at the same time exposing his person. The prisoner was then charged by John Batis with having violently assaulted him. It appeared that Batie wont to Morris' house to endeavor to get him not to harbor Ann Greer (who lives with prosecutor), and entice her to drink. Morris then beat tho prosecutor. Batis then laid an information for assault against Morris, who, hearing of it ,committed another assault on him, discoloring and marking his face very much. As prisoner denied the charges, and asked to have the evidence of John Mcc and Ann Greor taken, the case was adjourned till the next day. Mrß M'Gregor, who had just been sentenced, waa called in aB a witness for Morris, but her evidence was rather incoherent. She admitted she had no very clear recollection of events, as sho had not been properly sober since Sunday. CIVIL. Johnßton v Hadfield— rClaim, £9 0s 9d. It appeared from the statement of the case that defendant had been engaged by John Johnston to manage a station at Manawatu, at a Bal&ry of £100 per year. The power to deal with tho station having been withdrawn from Johnston and Co some six or seven months after, Hadfield was dismissed, but, as ho alleged, with the promise from John Johnston that he would put him on a station in Hawke'e Bay. Relying on this promise, Hadfield had not demanded tho customary notice from his employer, having had since drawn upon the firm for goods, which constituted tho present claim. In order to moot this, ho pleaded a set-off, on the ground of not having received tho nofcioo he was entitled to, and also a claim of mileage for attending a Court at Otaki, besides £5 for a trip to Wellington on tho business of tho station, on tho ground that his predecessor bad received that allowance. As Mr John Johnston was not present, the plaintiff, Walter Johnston, could not rebut the statement of Hadfield regarding bis father's promise to employ defendant on a station at Hawko's Bay, though, as his father owned only two stations in that province, both of which were managed by his brother, he thought it not at all likely that such a promise could have been made. As for defendant's claim for his trip to Wellington, that was done merely to draw the balance of his wages j and in tho claim for mileage, two applications for a rehearing of the case had been refused by Mr _ Willis, the

magistrate at Manawatu. On the ground that Hadfield was entitled to notice, his Worship gave judgment for defendant, with costs 14s. Rigg t Jones — Rates, £4. Mr Trovers for the City Counoil, and Mr Borlase for defendant. It appeared that this was the second time Jones had been wrongfully sued for Town Board rates, as, by agreement with Mr Izard, he was not to pay the rates ; and in the last case, although judgment was given agninst him, tho money had been paid by Mr Izard. He hud, however, neglected to appeal against being rated for tho property, only a portion of which he occupied. As no public declaration had been made by Mr Izard that ho was the rightful person to pay the assessment, and no steps had been taken by Jonos to correct tho error, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for 465, and costs £1 6s, but intimating to plaintiff that he had a good claim against Mr Izard. , Boor v Burn— Claim, £4 7s 6d. Judgment for amount and costs. Mitchell v Spackmnn— Cluim, £4 ss. Judgment for defendant with costs.