RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2170, 21 April 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day

(Before J. Fulton, Esq.. R.M.) CHARGE OF USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Forrest v. Bethune.—This was a charge brought by the informant against the defendant for using abusive and obscene language. The case was not proved, and was dismissed. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., E, M.) Civil Cases. Clarke v. Robinson.—An interpleader case. No appearance. APPLICATION FOR BE-HEAEING. H. S. Fish and Son v. Griffin, —Mr Haggitt, for the defendant, applied for a rehearing on the ground that judgment was allowed to go by default yesterday, through the non-appearance of the defendant, who was prevented attending the Court in consequence of an accident through which he was not able to reach Dunedin until half an hour after the case was dismissed. Mr Bathgate, for the plaintiff, opposed the re-hearing, on the ground that the defendant had not used due effort to reach Dunedin in time to defend the action, and that it was his intention, by his present course of action, to gain time in order that he might arrange with his creditors. The defendant was examined, and stated that he left Macraes on Tuesday, at midnight, and that before reaching Waikouaiti his horse was knocked up. He had some difficulty in procurihg another, but ultimately succeeded, and readied Dunedin too

late to defend the case. His Worship thought although the defendant had not given liimself sufficient margin of. time to insure Rim against hindrances through accident, there was sufficient ground for a re-hearing, which would be allowed on payment of legal expenses incurred by Mr Fish retaining Mr Bathgate. The case was then gone into. The claim was for Ll7 16s lOd. The defendant paid L 8 10s into court, and pleaded not indebted for the remainder. From the evidence it appeared that Mr Cross, a commission agent, waited upon the defendant, and transmitted an order for a case of glass, a quantity of coarse calico for lining, and 100 pieces of paper. The defendant denied having ordered the lining, and said he only ordered 25 pieces of paper. A correspondence took place between plaintiff and defendant. Tiie plaintiffs agreed to take back the lining, but they had received neither goods nor money. The defendant explained that the goods would have been sent back, but he bad not opportunity of doing so. They were not not used in the ordinary course pf his business, but for papering a room which was already lined with calico. He only required 25 pieces of paper for the purpose, but in a letter to Messrs Fish and Son had inadvertently written 75. His Worship was inclined to take the view of the plaintiff, as the goods might have been returned, for although defendant stated Lockwood’s dray was the only one by which they could have been sent, there were plenty of other conveyances. Judgment for the plaintiff, LI7 16s and costs.