RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3384, 24 December 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, December 24. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq,, E.M.) Attempted Suicide —Catherine Brown an old offender, was charged with attempting to commit suicide on the previous evening. Constable Fde, while on duty in Princes street at 9.15 last evening, was called into the shop of Mr Leary, chemist, to see tinprisoner. He found that she bad attempted to commit suicide, and she told him that if she had got a razor she would have done away with herself. She appeared to be in a state of delirium tremens.— James Neill, urn nrella-maker. s >id that the prisoner had bsen living with him for the last two years as house-keeper and needlewoman. Her coo duct was, on the whole, remarkably good excepting occasionally when she had som* drink, and then she became slightly “mud died. ’ About two weeks ago she got “tipsy,” and had been delirious since then, His Worship : I presume you mean she had delirium tremens. Do you knnv what that is?— Witness : Yes, perfectly well, 1 am a true-born Englishman.—(Laughter.)— Dr Yates said that the prisoner was brought to the Hospital between nine and ten o’clock last night. On examination he found a small out on the lower part ef her throat but not a very dangerous one. the was hardly a lit subject for the Lunatic Asylum, and should he sent back to the Hospital. The prisoner was bound over to keep the peace for six morfths in her own recognisance of L2O, and was ordered back to the Hospital. CIVIC CASE-*. N.E. Valley Hoad Hoard v. Win. Reid. Claim of 10a, rate of assessment on certain property occupied by defendant. The defence was that Reid was only a tenant, while the landlord, who also lived on the property, had always paid the rates, and was still willing to do so Judgment for amount claimed, with coals.

H, Oliver v. H. J. Cope,—Claim, Ll2 Us Bd, balance of, and interest on a dishonored promissory note. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs. A, K. Hay v, George Fraser. Claim, L 3 lOs for one silk jacket. The summons had been served on one George M. Fraser, of Wnipori, instead of the defendant who lately resided at Invercargill. There was no affidavit attached to the summons, the constable appending a foot note that be bad had to travel twenty-one miles to get to Waipori and the reason of no affidavit being on it was that no J.P. lived in the district. His Worship thought the proceedings very iiregular, and the whole affair a perfect bungle. The idea of a constable having to travel twenty miles, and then not being able to accomplish the thing requisite, was really ridiculous. He (the magistrate) could not move in the matter. The Mr Fraser wrongly sued applied for his expenses, but the application was disallow d.

Hogg and Hutton v. Wilson and Boss. - In this case the plaintiffs seek co recover the sum of L 75 for the wrongful conversion by defendants, in the months of August and September last, of certain goods, the property of the plaintiffs. Mr Stewart for plaintiffs, and M r K. Cook for defendants, wlio pleaded. “ general denial,” and that the goods were nob the property of the plaintiffs. The case bad previously been before the Court, Mr Watt being on the Bench, and was,_ at the request of the defendant’s counsel adjourned, although stringently oppos d by plaintiff’s counsel. P. M.Grantdeposedthatou orabout Friday, the loth August, he ordered certain goods cou-isting of tea, sugar, Ac., ;from plaintiff’s traveller. They arrived ea*ly on the Sunday, and witness commenced taking siock on the following Monday inornipg. He had dishonored some acceptance-* previous to stock-taking, and j}ad a writ from the Supreme Court hanging over him. • They were engaged two days taking stock. The goods now referred to were on the list with a foot-note in pencil to the effect that they bad not been opened. On the Wednesday he came into town and called at plaintiff s store. In a conversation with one of the partners, be co dd not say w'hica one, he re terred to a meeting of his ere liters; and ou the others saying that it was rather sharp work, aq they had just been senf; up, witnpas rcpliejl they could haye the goods back, as they were not touched. He was present at hie meeting of creditors. ' The

stock list was prepared before Ins going to j town and seeing one i f tbe plaintiff* Some reference being made to the goods, the plaintiffs were asked to put in their claim. They did so, and he explained that part of that claim was lor goods lately received hut not yet opened. [ A itnesg gave his evidence in anything but a straightforward manner, his Worship remarking “ That he was not sure of anything, but bedeved everything.”] His father and brntht-r bought the estate; and the goods refi-rred to in the claim were sold by thetrustees (the defendants). Witness was then cross examim d at considerable length by Mr (Jock: ->t tbe time of receiving the goods referred to ho expected to be able to pay 20s in the £, and did not believe himself insolvent. There was a discussion at h<meeting about those goods, and plaintiffs considered they ought to have them returned. The chairman, Mr Butterworth, said that was ridiculous ; a< d it was agreed that the goods should not be given up, - -lames Hogg, one of the plaintiffs, said that the goods referred to were ordered by Grant on the 15th August last, and were sent out by a carrier. He saw Grant on the following Wednesday morning at their store conversin' with Hutton. Grant and he went into the oliice, and the former ask«d about a bill, an acceptance to them. He informed him, whereupon he said he was going to have a meeting of bis creditors, and witness said he had acted very wrongly towards the r Hrm. Me then said that, with regard to the goods refened to, they should have vhem back, as they were placed aside and “not broken upon.” The reply was that they would see about them. This was about ten minutes before his meeting of creditors, and he immediately went away. Witness attended the meeting, Grant had a pocket-book giving a statement of his affairs, which was produced, tie was led to believe there was no reference to the goods which had gone up on Saturday. I'lte way it cropped up was his protesting against them being included. Grant said he -lid not consider they belonged to the stock, and that they hud been placed on one side and not been touched. In the evening ke called on uraut. who said that since the things had gone in the hands of his creditors .ie could not do anything without legal advice. In answer to Mr Cook, witness >aid that it was previous to the dividend eing declared that he put in the claim against the trustees. [Left sitting.]