RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROXBURGH.

Dunstan Times, Issue 625, 10 April 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROXBURGH.

o Tuesday, April 7(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Tubman v, Featlierstone,—Claim 51. ss. No appearance of either party, Struck out. Featlierstone v. Tubman.—Claim 10Z. No appearance. Struck out. Heighten v. Oroban. Claim T(. Dofemlanl p!eailed being a bankrnpt’since the liability was incurred, and had obtained his discharge. Plaintiff maintained that defendant had renewed his obligation by promises made since his discharge. The Court reserved judgment. Elder v. Alexander.-—This was an information laid by the father of two girls, aged eleven and twelve respectively, for an assault committed on them hy defendant. The children fave evidence that the defendant, Alia. Alexander, had come nut of

her house while ■ they wore passing from school, and abused them : van after thein aml [caught the elder one, assaulted her without, according to their account, the slightest provocation. Council for“the defendant endeavored to drag from the girls that they had provoked thp woman by some previous misconduct of theirs. A female witness, who gave evidence for the defence, said she was at defendant’s house, the children pass. Defendant was outside at the time, and she did not abuse or beat either of them. Could not hear what the children or defendant said. (The defendant was severely reprimanded by the Dench for making signs to this witness, and was told her conduct was equal to contempt of Court. Plaintiff also attempted to guide his children, and was ordered to sit down.; The Bench considered that an assault of a trivial character had boon, committed, caused doubtless by domestic grievances, from the face of the evidence. The Bench gave but little weight to the? evidence of defendant’s witness, and found accused guilty, and fined her 20s.- and costa. A pplieation for a slough tering license by MTlwaiu and others wast,granted. Dunlay v.. Briggs.—This was a cose in which judgment was reserved u from the last Court-day. The magistrate said he hail come to the opinion that the service of the summons was good ; according to . all authority ho had been able to gather, ‘Sunday must be computed in the time required for service, anil if any difficulty presented itself with regard to set-off, &c., it was fully provided for in the powers given to the Magistrate ; as to the plea of {jurisdiction the question in dispute being one of title of land, the Bench mnstjsnpport that plea, and nonsuit plaintiff with costs. - On Monday, (before the ' Justices, Dr. Hmieywill was brought up, on the appl cation of hisjhailcea, laid under Section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act, in that ho had reason to believe that ac euacd was about to abscond for [the purpose of ovadiugjj astice, and applied to he relieved from his obligations. Evidence was adduced to show that ace used had e::-. pressed himself as determined to adsent himself from trial unless all his expenses were paid. The Justices declined to interfere, not deeming the sulficiimtly strong. WARDEN’S COURT. —o—- — M‘l.auchlan applied for an extended 0.1-i,im on the Warltaia. Objected to by Norman Ross. It appeared that the ground applied for wasthc same area which the certificate had been cancelled for abandonment mi fho previous Court day, and Ross now objected on the ground that he was the proprietor of the claim when cancelled. and not M‘Donald, [[who was proceeded against. Objector’s counsel, Mr. F. J. Wilson, said he had the sale or transfer note to Ross 1 hut as it had only a penny postage stamp on, he would not produce it. Through the evidence it transpired that the sale took place four days before the complaint, but that Ross did not take poswesoioujtill a-week?.after. The Warden said, however much truth there might he iu Ross’s statement as to purchase, it was no reason'to open up the case of abandonment. Ross’s recourse must be acainst M,Donald. Application granted. The same party applied for a tail race. Objected to by Dugan, on the ground that it would interfere with his claim andtail race. Warden said that was a matter dealt with by the Rules and Regulation, and the parties must eater into the usual arbitration to sue if any and what damage applicant might do to objecting property. The application must stand over till this question is settled. The partnership of Woodhouso and Rtgney was called on, when Mr. Henderson, Solicitor, put in Receiver’s report, which set forth he had realised by sale of the estate 230/., and that claims had been put in, amounting to SO/. The Court went over the claims and adjusted the same. Considerable complaints were made against the Receiver’s charges, which were, Com-mission,-on sale, 11/. LOs {-'commission as Receiver, 11/. LOs ; advert'smgi'anil' printing, account, 3/ 10s ; lawyer’s advice, 2/. 1 Oa. The Court allowed ,the Commission on sale and printing account, hut certainly thought the other charges exccsssve and would allow 51. only, which was thought sufficient to remunerate for any trouble, as Receiver, and trust distinctly refused item, lawyer's advice, it being on the face of it an absurdity, (-particularly in an inferior Court ; the whold of the duties charged for were of so simple a character that, the receiver, if not capable of doing them, should have been so ; the Court would certainly take the case into consideration in future appointments. The amount divisible, being then ascertained, the matter of the partnership was finally settled.