RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3340, 3 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, November 3. (Before I. N, Watt, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —Thomas Hill, sen., was fined 5s ; George Naylor, ss, or twenty-four hours’ ; Ann Hardy, who stated that if forgiven this time she would take the pledge and never be seen in Court again, 20s, or fourteen days. The same prisoner was charged with being an habitual drunkard, and remanded till to-morrow. Theft. Elizabeth Connell was charged with stealing a petticoat from the Bay View Hotel, Maitland street.--Jane Woodilield, wife of the proprietor of the hotel, stated that about ten days ago accused, who was in the habit of going to the hj ouse for beer, stayed there one night, sleeping in the room in which the petticoat was, ofter accused had left the petticoat was missed ; that produced in Court was witness’s property and the one stolen.—Solomon London, manager of Mrs Davies’s pawnbrokiug business, stated that accused pledged with him the petticoat produced, on the 25th ult.—Accused pleaded guilty to this charge, and also to one*of stealing a decanter from the Maitland Hotel, in the same street. f-he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment on each charge, to take effect concurrently. Reiuna v. Dempsey. —There being no appearance of prosecution in this case, it was dismissed, without prejudice to the person informed against. CIVIL CASE. Stamper v. Bellamy and Lane.—Mr Stewart, for plaintiff, applied for a re-hearing in this case, judgment in which was given on Friday last ; Mr E. Cook opposed tho application for defendant Bellamy, Mr Stout for defendant Lane. Counsel lor plaintiff urged as ground for the application that his Worship in giving judgment had taken an incorrect view of the law : that, although his Worship had doubtless considered his opinion was formed according to the justice of the case, still it must be considered wrong in point of law,—Counsel for defendants argued that there was no ground for the application, as dissatisfaction with the judgment of a magistrate in a Resident Magistrate’s Court was never considered sufficient reason for a rehearing. Decision reserved. Carl Hagen v. Samuel Kerr.—Claim, L2 2s for photographs supplied. Mr Stout appeared for defendant. —Plaintiff said he agreed with defendant for six dozen photographs of the latter’s shop, of equal quality with a specimen taken lirst. Defendant said that when plaintiff showed him the proofs he refused to take any copies, as they did not please him. - John Stewart, who lives next door to defendant, corroborated his evidence. Judgment was giveu for defendant.