RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3336, 29 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, October 29, (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

DnnN’KRN’NK.ss. —Peter Watson was fined 3s, or 24 hours. Ass.un/r. Catherine M'Ooiiald was charged with assaulting and beating .lolm Briggs on the Sth inst. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. —Hub-Inspector Mallard asked for a remand, as Briggs was in the Hospital, and it was scarcely expected that he would live through' the day, in which case prisoner's presence would be required at the inquest.— Remanded till td-morrow. civil. CASKS. M‘Kcay v. Shaw.—Claim L 8 lls for rent of property at Bhieskni. Defendant stated that during the six months’ term for which he had agreed with plaintiff, he found that Mr Ward, Registrar of the Supreme Court, was in occupation of the house.—Angus Shaw deposed that on going to the house some months ago he found the place broken into, and some people in possession. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs. Flexman v, Matthews.—Claim L 5 2s 3d, balance of account for money advanced and board and lodging. Defendant stated that there was an error of LI 16s in tho addition of the account furnished him. Plaintiff admitted the error, and judgment was given for L 3 6s 3d, with costs. Tiltman v. George Thrush.—Claim L 5 10s, balance of promissory note for cash lent. Defendant’s wife appeared, and stated that she did not know •where her husband was. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs. Hickey v. Cox,—Claim LlO for damages sustained by plaintiff through defendant allowing water and filth to flow from his premises on to plaintiff’s goods ; and also by the ‘'annoyance to plaintiff’s comfort,” caused by defendant’s boarders. Mr Stewart appeared for plaintiff, Mr Harris for defendant.—James Hickey, paperhanger, stated that be lived next door to defendant’s hotel, the bedrooms of which were above witness’s dwelling, andthathehad sustained annoyance through drunken men being dragged about over his rooms, disturbing witness’s family, and also committing nuisances. Defendant in February last paid witness 8s for damage caused to his stock. It was no good complaining to defendant, as he bad delirium tremens,— John Ncamcs stated that he had been in plaintiff’s place lately, and noticed signs of tho nuisances complained of. Alexander Petrie and Horatio Roberts gave similar evidence. Mr Harris, for tho defence, said that the flooring of the room in question wae of such a description that it was impossible to have it washed without water trickling through fo plaintiffs room. Plaintiff bad, however, only complained mice, and the defendant immediately paid him the. amount he claimed for damage to his goods. As to the annoyance, defendant kept the house as quiet as possible, but in an hotel there were necessarily at times noisy people. —Michael Cox, landlord of the Dunedin Hotel, stated that the only annoyance his boarders caused was by going up stairs : there was never any lighting. Cross-examined : Sometimes men “half tight” were in his house. Plaintiff had only complained to him two or three times. Had a lodger named Davis sometimes stopping in hia house; but did not turn him away when his money was gone and take him in again when he got more. Davis got drunk sometimes, so witness moved him to another bedroom.— Uis Worship thought that looking at the situation of the two dwellings, defendant, when he had noisy or drunken men in his house, should not put them in the room over plaintiff’s premises. Tho case, however, was , not so grave as appeared at first, ami his 1 Worship thought the sum of L 3 would be sufficient compensation. Judgment for plaintiff for L 3, with costs.

Potter v. Fearon.—Claim L 7, for a tipdray. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wilson for defendant. Ann Potter stated that she sold defendant the dray, and ho took delivery of it. Two months afterwards she asked him for the money, when he replied that he had not tiro money just then. Cross-examined : Defendant did not hire the dray of witness.—John Fearon, defendant, said that ho had only hired the dray.—James Fearon, brother of defendant, said that on Saturday last plaintiff told defendant that-if she had known he would deny having bought the dray, she would have

sold it to some one else. Plaintiff was nonsuited. his Worship stating that it was a case of oath against oath. Moore v. Reynolds.—Claim T. 7 for wages. Mr Wilson appeared for plaintiff; Mr M Kcay for defendant. Plaintiff stated that on the 2:ird instant defendant, who was then master of the Mary Van Every, engaged him at L 7 per month. After working two days, a new master was appointed, and witness received notice that he would not be wanted, The new captain (Hughes) said ho was appointed on the 24th, and Unit witness was discharged. —John Reynolds, defendant, stated that he was formerly master of tho schooner, but coasfd to be so on tho 24th inst. —Mr M’Keay contended that as defendant was not master on the 25th—tho day on which hj; was sued —he was not liable; and also because plaintiff should have sued for damages, not for wages.—His Worship was of opinion that the master and owner were liable, and that the new master having taken possession of the vessel, had thereby placed himself in the position of the former master (defendant), and should have been the party sued. Plaintiff was nonsuited.—There wore two other similar cases against the same defendant, which were dealt with in the same way.