RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 468, 7 April 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CLYDE.

Tuesday. April, 4. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M., and James Hazlctt, Esq , J.P.) Petty v. Young—Claim for amount of promissory note, £lO. -Same V. Kirkwood. —Claim for £l7 3s. Cd. In those cases judgment was confessed. * Cottar v Loughnan.—lllegal impounding; Adjourned by consent till the 11th inst. Alexander Petty, charged on information with permitting drunkenness and disorderly conduct in his licensed house, pleaded guilty. There being no evidence in support of tho charge laid the case was dismissed. X Blair v. Kincard, M‘Queen, and 0. M* Brough for plaintiff and\Mr. Wilson for H fendants. Claim for £2p 4s. This had been adjourned from the 21st ultimo tj allow evidence to be taken in Dunedin. Tho case, it had hern adjourned in Dunedin through an informality till 10th inst. It was di eideJ, as plaintiff wi>hed to go up country, to take his evidence. He was then placed in the box, and deposed that he entered into a contract with defendants to do certain work in connexion with the Colclough Compan’ys crushing machine, which work he had completed according to agreement. Defendants were to pay his fare from Dunedin to Bendigo and back. He claimed £5 for his fare to Dunedin, £7’ 4a. for loss of time, and £l4 18s. balance of wages due. In cross-examination he stated that his (x----penses had teen pail Dunedin to Bendigo, and could prbveian “ alibi” to a charge of getting drunk about the 16th of December. He was in the Hospital for some time, but attributed being compelled to go there to a “burst of nature.” He went to work on the 31st of October, and continued working till the 17th of December. Resumed on the 9th of January, and worked two wei ks two days, and threequarters. The case was then adjourned till the 18th inst. Brough v. M ‘Arthur. —This case, which w r as brought to test'tlnK question whether persons having land insufficiently fenced could legally impound, waasbandoned, and was brought on merely to havo'thc Resident Magistrate’s opinion on the by Mr. Brough in bringing the action\,Mr. PykesaidthelmpoundingOrdinance showed the manner in which such actions should boV brought, and that, by paying the fees, the \ plaintiff’ had put himself out of Court. '