RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Cromwell Argus, Volume II, Issue 104, 7 November 1871, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Thursday, November 2, (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq'.', Tf.’il/. / and James Taylor, Esq., J.P.) ■ CHARGE OP TRESPASS. James Scott, baker, of Cromwell, was charged, on the information of Sergeant Cassela, with allowing four goats to wander within the Municipality. • Mr Brough, on behalf of defendant, pleaded Guilty; but in extenuation of the offence explained the difficulties of restraining goats within any prescribed boundaries. His client would, however, take special measures to prevent the animals again trespassing within the township. The officers of the p dice did not press the charge, and the case was dismissed upon payment, by the defendant, of the costa of the summons. ' BREACH OP THE PEACE. Joseph Laverty and Mark Shale were summine I for creating a breach of the peace, by fighting, on Sunday, the 23th of October. Defendants did not put in an appearance, and Sergeant Oassels said he did not wish to press the charge. Mr Pvke said the Act was mandatory. The defendants ought to have obeyed the summons, anl their non-appearance was, in effect, a contempt of Court. They must appear, r.n l the police should take out a warrant to compel their appearance. * Warrant taken out accordingly. A ROW AT THE REEFS. Thimas Hudson, alias Johnny up a Plum Tree, charged a female named Mary Guidford with having, on October 2nd. at Logantown, use 1 threatening, abusive, an 1 insulting words to complainant and his wife, —such words being calculate I to cause a breach of the peace. Mr Wilson appeared for the defendant. The complainant conducts I his own case. The following is a summary of the evidence Tiumis Hudson, sworn : I am a butcher, residing at Logvatown, On October 2nd, the defendant came to my house, the worse of liquor, and accused mv wife of saying “bad things” about her ; she said Mrs Jackson and Airs Wheeler could prove that Mrs Hudson ha d slandered her. Sho said that Mrs Hudson was a b -y w . and ten times worse than she (Mrs Guildford) was herself. She refus id, when asked, to leave the house, and chased my wife, who had an infant in her arms. Shortly afterwards she returned, an I took up several bottles, which she threw at the windows, and smashed them. She said that I kept a brothel. Cross-examined by Mr Wilson : All this took place on October 2nd. I did not take out the summons till three weeks after. I did not cull her a sanguinary prostitute ; nor did I strike her.

Jane Wheeler, sworn ; I was at Hudson’s house on October 2nd. Mrs Guildford was there. There was a disturbance, and I went to see what it was all about. Hudson used very improper language to Mrs Guildford, calling her bad and improper names. Hinson : What were the words used ? Witness declined to utter the obscena words. Mr Pyke : I will not compel the witness—a woman—to defile her tongue by uttering, in this Court, obscene and indecent expressions. Witness: I saw Hudson strike Mrs Guildford in a brutal manner, on her mouth and breast. It was done in the passage, behind the door. Hudson here interrupted the witness in a very abrupt manner so said Mr Pyke : Yon -are evidently a cantankerous, quarrelsome, disagreeable man. You are nonconducting yourself in this Court in a most indecent manner. Hudson : Thank you, sir. Mr Pvke : If you do not behave yourself, you will have something more to thank me for in another moment. Witness, cross-examined by Mr Wilson : After he had called Mrs Guildford “bad names,” she simply said, “ You had better look after your own ” Mr Wilson then addressed the Bench, declaring that, in his opinion, Hudson ought to have been the defendant. It was evi lent, from the evidence, that he was the aggressor ; an 1, b ■ his own evidence, had proved the defendant’s case. He (Mr Wilson) urged that the case should be dismissed. Mr Pyke : The case is dismissed. In doing so, the Bench desire to express their utter disgust that such a filthy case should ever have been brought into Court. The Magistrates cannot conceive of anything in the shape of a man acting in so indecent and cowardly a manner as, from his conduct in Court to-day, it is evilent the complainant (Hudson) is capable of doing. Case dismissed. CIVIL CASE. The Trustees of the Estate, of the late Patrick Kelly v. Edward Grant.—This was an action to recover £lO, due to the estate. . An 1.0 U. was produced by Mr W. Shanly(one of the trustees) in proof of the debt. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. A CARDROYA CASE. Colclough ». Needham.—To recover £0 11s., for goods sold.

Mr Brough for plaintiff. Mr Wilson, for de fondant, asked that the cvidcneo of Ids client (who was unable to attend the Court in Cromwell) should be taken at the Court nearest to the place (Cardrona) where the causa of action arose. The defendant resided 50 miles away, and had a good defence to the action. After some discussion, the Renoh granted an adjournment of the esse for a week, during which time defendant could take any course he might be advised to do by counsel. A DISPUTED ACCOUNT. Col clou .ib v. Bond.—To recover £S la., alleged to bo due for goods sold »nd delivered. Mr Brough appear© I for the plaintiff; Mr Wilson, for the defendant, pleaded Not In dsbtc 1. Thacvilenje in this case was of a peculiarly involve I character. It eventuated in air Bond producing a receipt from Mr Ci.lclou'h for the sum of iIS 12a.. —apparently for the ilont'cal goods which wore charged in the bill of pardonbars attached to the sumraona. The account-books a/oro produced, together with several invoices.

Mr Wilson (for defendant) argued that the debt had not been promt. -In. fact, the receipt which had been produced was conclusive evidence that the money had been paid for any goods received by Bond from Colclough. ,0. B. Bond, being sworn, declared that the goods in question had been paid for. He had not by his own hand passed the cash to Colclough ; but it had, he was certain, been paid to plaintiff nn,his:( Bond’s) behalf by Mr Hibson. Mr I’vke : The hooks .do not correspond with the accounts produced. The debt is not proved, in the opinion of the Bench; aiid this evidence discloses a very extraordinary style of book-keep-ing. The debit side appears to have been attended to; hut the credit side utterly neglected. Mr Wilson asked for costs. Mr Pyke : I shall allow defendant full costs. The case should not have been brought in this Court at all ; and I will not encourage men being dragged down the country, 50 or 60 miles, away from the place where the cause of action arose After some discussion, Mr Brough consented, on behalf of his client, to take a Nonsuit. The Bench awarded Mr Bond £4 for personal expenses; 21s. for his professional adviser’s fee; and 295. Court costs. Total, £6 10s. IMPORTANT TO LANDOWNERS. Broughton v. Brown.—This was an adjourned case. The Id. M. now gave judgment. He said he had, since the hearing, fully considered the question then raised as to the right to demand lateral support to land. Ho had consulted Addison and other authorities, and found two or three hitches in the matter ; but had been enabled to arrive at the conclusion that as there was no fixed or proclaimed street level, or base line, everv owner of land had a perfect ri-shfc to reduce his section, or sections, to any level he might choose. The defendant was, in point of fact, a trespasser. This being the law, the Court give judgment for the plaintiff, £l9 damages, and £2 6s. costs.