RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3404, 19 January 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, January 19. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.), ; Drunkenness.—John Madden was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 17th mat.-Constable Anderson said that the bar-rack-master at the Immigration Barracks had called his attention at midnight on Saturday Ptf fion ? r . who was an arrival by the DunnUan. His conduct was most outrageous, and he had disturbed the whole place. He was “ mad*’ drunk"—Prisoner, who had expressed regret for so offending, and asked to be dealt leniently with, was fined 20s, in default three days’ imprisonment; John Dale, ; who bore marks of his misconduct in the shape of a scratched face, 30s or a week; James KilPatrick, 5s ,pr twenty-four hours; Anne Hardy, who was described by his Worship as “ one of the worst incorrigjblps,” L 5 or fourteen days* Fruit Stealing. -—Albert Sutton was charged with stealing, on the 17th inst., from the garden of William M'Ardle, gardener, a quantity of gooseberries and apples of the value pf Js. The accused, who had not landed from the Bum fillan more than half-an-hour, was led away by some other boys to prosecutor’s garden to get some fruit, and while doing so was arrested. The prosecutor, in consequence of the accused’s conduct after his arrest, did not wish to press the charge. Ihe lad’s father, who was in Court, said that this was the first occasion on which he had known his son to :do anything wrong. His Worship was willing to regard it as a boyish trick, andfthat the accused; who seemed to bear ap excellent character, had been led away. He wpjjid bp discharged, and his Worship hoped that this WffpjLd apt ps a caution to him.

piyijc, ,CA§ES. Judgment was given by' default in the following cases with costs Graham v. Dempsey, claim L 25, owing to plaintiffs as assignees jn the estate of Hugh Lyons, for furniture bought; Tates v. Kay, Ll 18s 6d for goods supplied: Peters v. M‘Lennan, L2 la 7d for machine work done.

Lockwood v. Murray.—Claim L 7 5s for work done, L 7 being for carriage of circus goods from ■Uunedm to Palmerston, and 5s for a passenger s meals. Mr Stout, for plaintiff, who deposed that he had agreed with defendant’s agent *>r the carnage of the goods to Palmerston for u?L u J liad his part of the contract, but bad not received any money.—Defendant, A circus prqpi'iqtor, said that he had agreed with plaintiff that foe’should receive L 7 for taking the things to Palmerston, and bring them back on the Saturday night. He had taken them up, but did not bring them back.— John Coleman, manager for defendant, gave corroborative evi- 1 deuce.—His Worship thought, from the evidence before him that, there had been a misconception of the arrangement, and, as a solution of the matter, would give judgment for ho ss, together with costs,

Clark and Son v. Brown,—Claim, L 49 16s, balance of account for coals supplied Mr Stewart for plaintiffs, Mr Harris for defendant. , . lls , P aJ d into Court, and defendant t( ? have deducted L 47 5a 3d. On the 7th March last, defendant chartered the brig 1 nomas and Henry from plaintiffs to proceed to Newcastle, New South, Wales, and there load coal. It was agreed that plaintiff, who wdnt in the boat, should get 23s 6d per ton as freight. The pit certificates representing the amount of coal on hoard were handed to a banker there, defendant’s agent, who took, possession of them. ■ There were three voyages. On reaching Port Chalmers with the second cargo, defendant agreed to take the cargo as he had done with the first, viz., by the pit certificate, The goods were therefore not weighed. It was agreed that some one representing both parties should see that all cargo from the barque was fully discharged into the lighters. A Mr Lawrence was appointed for the purpose. The whole of the cargoes were delivered as per pit certificates. The defence was that there was ■ short delivery in the last two cargoes. Mr Stewart submitted that when the’charterer did not agree to take by the pit certificates, the coals were always weighed before leaving the vessel; but defendant had taken them away, and never asked to have them weighed. The lighters often used the coal themselves, especially when they were wind-bound for any time.) —Evidence haying been given on both sides,* his Worship said it was a question apparently whether defendant had elected to take the two last cargoes by the pit certificates or by weight. He must confess that, from the meagre evidence before him. to decide this would be somewhat, difficult. Brown appeared to have transited his business in a very loose" way, holding conversations of so improtant a nature in the' street instead of having the matter settled in writing. The evidence was particularly meagre on both sides, and he did not see anything to upset the statement made by the plaintiff.— Judgment would therefore be for the amount claimed, with costs. ■ Mitchell v. Goodison.—Claim 810,, for an assault alledged to have been committed on Or, .about the 23rd December, andXi3los for. damage done to plaintiff’s house.—Mr Stewart for plaintiff, Mr Stout for defendant.—Mr Stewart said that his client, through not having corroborative evidence, would be obliged to forego tire charge of assault. —Judgment was given by consent for the other. amount (L3los) claimed,, with costs. [Left sitting.]