RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1911, 21 June 1869, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. Chetham-Strode,'Esq., E.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Henry Meecham for this offence was fined 10 s. Catherine Aiuslie, a habitual tippler, was fined L 5 or 14 days’ imprisonment.— Henry Stewart and William Wilson on bail were each fined 10s. William Cowley was fined 10s, or 24 hours’ imprisonment for being drunk. Cowley was further charged with assaulting Alexander Mee of the Otago Hotel without any provocation being given, and was fined L 3 and costs, or to be imprisoned ten days. ASSAULT. William Morrison was charged by Henry M‘Culloch with assaulting him early yesterday morning. The statement of the prosecutor was that about 12.30 yesterday morning as he was on his way home from the theatre, the accused came up to him, and after saying “You struck my old woman,” he struck defendant with the buttend of a loaded whip, knocked kim down, and while on the ground struck him again. The accused expressed sorrow for the assault but pleaded provocation. He was fined L 4 and costs, or 14 days’ imprisonment. The fine was immediately paid. Civil Cases. Chaplin and Co. v. Black.—Mr Kenyon, on behalf of the defendant, consented to judgment, but suggested that the hearing fee should not be charged, as it was impossible the defendant could personally appear according to to the rules of the Court, he being in Wellington. The Magistrate said under the circumstances, he -was of opinion that the hearing fee should not be charged. Armstrong v. Gray. —An undefended case for L 5 6s. Judgment for the plaintiff by default. Levjen v. Paterson.—Ll 18s. The defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount. Condor v. Hyndman—The plaintiff claimed LI Is, for valuation of work done in the building of a shop. Mr Ward appeared for the defendant, and examined the plaintiff to show that tbe valuation for which he claimed pay avas done on his own behalf, in estimating for the rebuilding of a chimney blown down by an explosion on Bell Hill, Mr Crashaw, contractor, said that he was employed to act as arbitrator in a dispute between Messrs Calvert and Campbell ami the defendant, and the claimant was called in to act on the other part. He himself received a guinea for his services, and he thought Condor avas entitled to a like sum. —The defendai t said the plaintiff was never employed by him. There avas no dispute between him and Messrs Calvert and Campbell requiring reference. —Mr Campbell, of the firm of Cala-ert and Campbell, said that there avas a valuation necessary in consequence of damage done by tbe blasting on Bell Hill, and that it was referred by both parties to Mr Crashaav, on the one side, and to an arbitrator appointed by Mr Hyndman, on the other. Judgment avas given for the plaintiff for the amount aviLh costs. M‘Neil vMuir.—The plaintiff claimed L 5 18s 3d for cords of fireavood. Mr Harris for the defendant. The defence was that the eon of the plaintiff had entered into an arrangement to clear the land of defendant ; that the fireavood avas agreed to be taken by him. He cut a good deal of firewood, but did not complete bis contract, and in consequence the plaintiff had suffered severe loss. —Thomas Robertson gave evidence in confirmation of the non-completion of the contract. Judgment avas given for the defendant.

Ellis v M'Laren. —A claim for rent of a cottage, from February G tli to this time. Air Ward, for the defence* said, that the cottage was taken from the 16th, and not the 6th, at 10s a-wcck ; that the defendant had paid L 3 on account, (which was credited only as one pound), and afterwards two pounds. A cheque for two pounds was proved to have been paid on the 17th April, which the plaintiff affirmed was on account of fencing and repairs. Judgment for plaintiff, L 3 10s. ASSAULT. Barnes v. Cunningham.—A chum for L 5, for damages to the plaintiff’s wife, through Mrs Cunningham assaulting her; Mr Wilson for the plaintiff.—Mrs Baines said she saw Mrs Cunningham on her ground on the 14th June. She had a little pudding basin in her hand, from which she was throwing some dirty water, -when by accident it slipped out out of her hand. Airs Cunningham picked it up, when Mrs Barnes went and just laid her hand on the basin. Mrs Cunningham resented this impertinence, and seized her by the hair, pulled her down, and heat her most fearfully with her fists. Mrs Barnes put her hands up to guard her face, when Mrs Cunningham broke the basin all to pieces over her face, which she cut, and Dr Sorlcy was obliged to ho fetched to stop the bleeding.—William Griffin confirmed most of Mrs Barnes’s statements, but added that the water thrown from the basin was evidently intended to reach Airs Cunningham. The latter bad complained of Airs Barnes having destroy! d a child’s hat. —l)r Sorlcy said very little damage was done, beyond a slight wound on the point of the nose.—Airs Cunningham said her chdd, in passing Airs Barnes’s house, had her hat Mown from her head, which that lady picked up and tore to pieces. Some words passed, when Airs Barnes accosted her in very unparliamentary language, which she followed up by throwing a basin at hj r. In consequence, when Airs Barnes went to recover the basin, she pulled her down. —Airs Stewart, who saw the affray, said it arose through Airs Barnes throwing the basin at Airs Cunningham, and trying to recover it. —The Alagistrate said the complainant was getting into constant scrapes through her tongue, off which, if a

piece were cut, the public would be gainers. The evidence was, however, in favor of her having been assaulted. Verdict for the plaintiff, 20s and costs. Miller v. Fuller.—A claim for L2O for loss sustained through not being able to obtain 16 cases of kerosene lodged in the Government kerosene store. Mr Ward appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Wilson for the defendant. The oil was stored on the 29th April, 1868. The plaintiff in consequence of a rise in the market had sold the oil at a profit of some L 25 or L2S, but only sued for L2O. No charge, Mr Ward maintained, could be due for receiving and delivering as the oil was not delivered. Evidence was given byMrT. Little toshowthat in Maylast, kerosene was worth 3s 4d in bond. In February it was worth 2s 6d to 2s Bd, duty paid. Mr Campbell gave evidence that he offered the plaintiff kerosene at 3s lOd in May, in February it was 2s 8d or 2s 9d. Mr Wilson contended that as the goods were applied for in February, the valuation should be on the price of oil during that month, and not at a subsequent period. The defendant was entitled to storage up to the time of the application for the kerosene, as he would have had to pay storage if it had been delivered. The Magistrate gave judgment for the amount paid into Court.