RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3466, 1 April 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, April 1. (Before J. Bathgate, t£aq., R.M.) Drunkenness. Archibald Fraser was finsd ss, wich the option of twenty-four hoars’ imprisonment. Sundry Thefts. -Elsie Horst, alias Jim Johns ton, charged with stealing a pair of trowsers, the property of Mary Barry, pleaded guilty. There being other charges against the same prisoner, his Worship reserved sentence till the close of tho next case,-—Johnston was then ebarged with stealing one Chinese ornament, of the value of 30s, the property of Francis Krull Prisoner pleaded not gaily. Francis Krull hotelkeeper, living in Ceorge street, said the article produced was his. He last saw it on the 15th or 16th of the present month, and missed it abeut the 220 d. rfaw it in the possession of the police on the morning following tbo day on which he reported the matter to the police. —Elizabeth Hudson, proprietress of the Kaiubow Hotel, staced that she bought the ornament produced from prisoner about the 20th instant Gave him six shillings for it. Said he got it from the vessel which he worked on.—Sergeant Golder deposed to having arrested prisoner on the previous morning. On being informed of the charge, he denied having been in the house, and also having sold the article.— His Worship: When was the theft of the pair of trousers committed ? -Sub-Inspector Mallard : In broad daylight.—Prisoner was sentenced to sixty days’ imprisonment.— Un the charge of stealing tho ornament, a fur- , ther sentence of sixty days’ imprisonment, to take effect after the expirati >n of the other term, was imposed. Prisoner was also charged with stealing from the dwellinghouse of one William Spray, two shirty of the value of 7s; and was sentenced to sixty days’ imprisonment on this charge, making six months in all CIVIL CASES, Judgment by default was given in the following cases, together with ousts ;—M‘Neil v. Knox, L 4 6s 4d, g .ods sold; M'Neil v. Mundy, L2 16s, goods sold; Al‘Donaldv. M'Pherson, L 3 16s, livery, &c. Hutton v. M‘Keay.—-tlaim LlO on a pro* missory note. —No appearance of defendant. —Hie Worship, after looking at the note, said plaintiff Had drawn the bill, which had been accepted by Thames M‘Keay, and endorsed by his brother Alexander. Had M-Keay endorsed the bill above plaintiff then he could have had recourse to plaintiff. Plaintiff non-suited. Mowatt v. Johnson.—ln this case* which was heard a few days ago, Mr Stout, for plaintiff, applied for a rehearing. The grounds on the plaint were surprise, and fresh evidence.—Mr Stout wished co draw his Worship’s attention to the fact that there was no analogy between the rules in this aud the supreme Court, in this Court they were not. tied jdovyn by the rules which bound the superior Court, nor by the decUions in the cases in the Home Courts. The judgment given iq this case shut out plaintiff from again bringing the case on. There was oath ag.inst oath, and his Worship gave judgment for defendant; whereas if there had been a nonsuit, he might have had the case brought on again. Defendant had alleged that plaintiiy was drunk, but lie could bring evidence to deny this. If defendant had proved to have made false statements in this instance, he (Mr Stout) submitted that the rest of her evidence was not worth anything.—Mr M‘Keay contended hat fresh evidence was not admissible.—Mr tout s kid the Court could hear additional evileuce if it would prove that portion of that given was untrue.—Mr M‘Ke»y opposed the application, Defendant might hsre applied

for a re-hearing, but plaintiffqpnld not The summons was taken out on the 11th March, the date (it hearing appointed for the 18th ; and as it was found impossible that the case coaid be heard on that day, an adjourn* ment was granted till the 25th. He therefore bad ample time to get the case up properly.— Mr Stout said in rep y that it was absmd on the face of the matter to say that plaintiff had ample time to deny that he was drunk, when he did not know that such would bo stated till the case catno ou. The rehearing of the application was wholly left to the discretion of the Bench.—His Worship was free to admit tbat the case was one of very peculiar difficulties. He must also say tbat he did not decide the case on oath as against oath. There were three witnesses—the second witness for the defence he considered an impartial one- and defendant’s haying Been drunk or not did not form an important element in his mind. This second witness for the defence also corroborated defendant with regard to the conversation which plaintiff had stated was false and denied. He had the evidence of the two witnesses against the plaintiff’s alone, and he coaid not believe these two witnesses had stated falsely. He only mentioned these matters to disabuse Mr b tout's mind that he had not decided the case on oath as against oath. He would not encourage litigation, and the rehearing would not be granted. Innes v. Bird.—Claim LI3 7s 6d, for a quantity of eggs sold and delivered. Mr Stout for plaintiff, Mr E. Cook for defendant. This case had not concluded when we went to press.