RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2180, 3 May 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq , R. M.) Civil Cases. Pritchard v. Keogh—This was an application for a re-hearing on the ground of surprise and erroneous judgment. The application was made by Mr Ward, who said he was prepared to produce skilled evidence in corroboration of the allegation of the plaintiff, that the mare of the defendant should hj ive returned to the stables, where his horse stood on the fourteenth instead of the ninth day. Mr Bathgate opposed the re-hearing on the ground that the defendant acted according to instructions given by the plaintiff’s groom. His Worship consented to a rehearing on payment of costs already incurred. The re-hearing was appointed to take place on Wednesday, the 11th May. John Thunderbolt v.‘Samuels—An application for complete executign of a judgment. Mr Ward opposed the application op the ground of the ease having been heard in the absence of the defendant, who is steward on board the Tairoa. His Worship pointed out it was too late to speak of a re-hearing, as execution had issued. The defendant Francis .Samuels was put into the box, and said he was not married. The woman calling herself Mrs Samuels, was simply an acquaintance of his in England, and was a fellowpassenger of his. On her arrival she went up the country, anil at the time of her confinement, Mrs Thunderbolt said she had taking the liberty of calling her Mrs Samuel, and a ring was put on her finger to sustain the deception. He did not consent to the arrangement. The girl was living ?n Stafford street, and he visited her occasionally—not particularly, nor very often. Witness and a young man a friend lived with him at the house where she resides in Stafford street, and he (defendant) paid the rent, which she repaid, as she took in washing and sewing. His Worship said that the defendant was clearly liable, as ho had alowed the woman to pass as his wife, whether he was married to her or not. He was ordered to pay half the amount, L 4 3s, on the 13th May, and the remainder one month afterwards, or in default to be imprisoned two months. CHARGE OF USING PROFANE LANGUAGE. Mary Fairbank v. Jessie Patten—Mr Ward for the plaintiff. This was an information by the complainant, who lives at Highcliff. The defendant is her nearest neighbor. On Good Friday complainant heard a great noise, and, looking out, she saw Mrs Patten coming down and making use of indecent and abusive language directed against herself, and at length sh« stripped to her stays for the pur-

pose of fighting with her. She could uot repeat the words made use of, but would write them down. (They were written down ac- < ordingly, and were said to be a mild sample, but they were gross enough.) She had been givlty of similar conduct for five years. The defendant screamed the language up and down, so that all the neighbors could hear. A witness said Mrs Patten charged Mrs Fairhank with cohabiting with her husband for twenty years. The defendant had had a nobbier or two. She took off her shawl and cap for the purpose of fighting with complainant. The defendant admitted using the language, but said she was greatly provoked. She believed the ioforniaui; to lie a decent woman; but the words she herself had used were partly used by the informant to her husband. She regretted using the words. She was fined 30s and costs, or to be imprisoned four day . His worship warned the defendant against appearing again to answer a similar charge, or lie would bind her over to keep the peace.