RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3470, 7 April 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, April 7. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness,—Matthew Morrison, John White, and Frederick Dickens were each fined ss, with the option of 24 hours impnsonmeut; Mary Thomson and Mary Jane Gibbs, each 40s, or 14 days.—There was a further charge against the last-named prisoner, of habitual drunkenness, which his Worship decided to withdraw-—fsub-Inspec-tor Mallard : Withdraw the charge your Worship ? His Worship : Has she been convicted three times within the period ?—The MHnspector: She has,—His Worship : V> ithdraw the charge and let her go to gaol on the other.

Cruelty to animals. —Patrick Cox and August Yager were each charged with havmg, on the 10th March, illtreated and cruelly beaten a dog, contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, 1861. —The evidence showed the cruelty to he of the most brutal nature. Cox had hit the dog with au axe while Yager held it, and had afterwards thrown the animal over the fence where it was found, and had to be shot by the police.—Each offender was fined 40s and costs, in default, 14 days imprisonment with hard labor.

Stone Throwing. —John M'Lennan, not appearing in answer to a charge of . stone throwing on the Town Belt, near Duke street, a warrant was ordered to issue for his apprehension.

Bye-law Inerinqmbnt. David Lewis, charged with allowing three head of cattle to depasture on the North Dunedin Recreation Ground, not, appearing, ' a warrant was ordered to be issued for bis apprehension. Robbery prom the Person. Lucy Leighton was charged on remand with stealing from the person of one John Orr, at the house of Samuel Wills, the sum of L34in bank notes.-—John Orr, butcher, remembered Saturday, March 28. On that day was at the house of Samuel Wills. Had in his possession three, ten pound and four one pound notes in the purse produced. On arnving at Wills’s bouse saw prisoner and Mrs Wills there. Went to sleep on the sofa, and when he woke up found prisoner in the room and the whole of his money gone. Accused prisoner of stealing it and he had some words with hen She denied having taken it. Went down stairs and slept on the sofa all night. Had not seen prisoner since then till the present time. He told Wills and his wife that he accused prisoner of stealing the money; The notes were Bank of New South Wales. Ross Anderson said that he Went With prisoner to the Police Station, where she voluntarily made a statement about the matter. She also made a confession to him about the matter—said it "almost sent her mad.—A remand till Thursday morning was then applied for by the police, and granted. .Remanded' charges against Samuel Wills for receiving the money, knowing it to

be stolen, and Elizabeth Wills, hia wife, for aiding and abetting Leighton to rob Orr were also adjourned till Thursday, after which the Court adjourned. ; CIVIL OASES Gregg v. Krull.—ln this case, heard last week, his Worship delivered judgment for the amount (Ll9 17s lOd) claimed with costs, not sustaining the set off raised by defendant. —Mr Chapman: W ill your Worship grant leave to appeal ?—Mr Ba hgate : Certainly. It is a very nice point, and a very good point to bo settled by the Supreme Court. Innes v. Bird.—His Worship delivered judgment herein, for the defendant, , as he considered the eggs (270 dozen delivered at . defendant’s order by plaintiff, and for which Lls was claimed) were in an unwholesome state when delivered.—Mr Stout: Well, your Worship, cases are not provisions, we claim for the cases. They constitute part of our claim.—Mr E. Cook said they could have the cases.—Mr Stout: If you will notice the plaint, perhaps yon hare overlooked the second claim. I ask leave to appeal, since judgment has been given. His Worship would not grant leave to appeal. He considered the claim as one. The evidence was very plain that the eggs .was not in a fit state Mr Stout thought the. evidence-was plain enough that a baker had used five dozen of them. If. the police wished they might proceed against the party in Christchurch who sent the eggs.—Bis Worship.said that in all such oases he declined to grant leave to appeal. ' Municipal Corporation Appeals.—The appeals against the : Corporation assessments were then proceeded with, Mr Smith appearing for the At the outset. Mr Smith stated that in. No. 720 (Messrs MjLandresa, Hepburn & Co.) the amount had by arrangement been reduced by LSO ■ from L4OO to L3so.—Judgment was given by consent for the latter amount.—Edward Turley appealed to have the amount on his house reduced; it had been assessed by the City Valuator at L3O per year. Mr Hawkins said in his opinion the gross rental Would be about L2B to L 30.. He thought there would be no difficulty in getting 10s a week for the house. Several two-roomed houses realised 10s or 11s a week.—His Worship: Do you mean to say that tworoomed houses will fetch Ils a week?— Witness: I do indeed; in several places they would.—His Worship reduced the val-, nation to Lls a-year.—Messrs Hay man &: Co. appealed against the excessive amount •t.whuffi their warehouse had been assessed. —Mr Stewart, for the appellants, said that ■ JJesars Hayman thought the amount at which they had been assessed was excessive. They paid LlO5 a year for the land and the building had been assessed at L 350. They lodged an appeal last year, but on account of an . informality it was dismissed. They thought L3OO would be extremely excessive.—Mr Jones, in the employ of appellants, said they paid, L4O for rates. He did not think, if they wished to let the place, that they could get more than L3OO for it. They, paid a large amount for water-rates.—Mr Smiththought that water-rates should not be considered, as they were expected to get their value for the water ; but hia Worship con sidered that such was doubtfulin some cases. Mr Hawkins said that he considered the warehouse, with the building in the rear if offered to warehousemen, would fetch a rental of at least L 450 to LSOO per year Messrs North and Scoullar’a new building was a mere shell, while this was not,— Appeal dismissed.—A. W. Smith applied to have the lease on a paddock owned by him reduced. He had it on a five years’ lease, at L 25 per annum, and it had been valued at , L9O. The property was assessed at L4B last year. Mr Hawkina said he placed L 1,500 on the value of the land if it were built upon, and taking six per cent, as the current rate of interest, that would make L9O per year. The appeal Was reduced to L6O. -Frederick Hoffman applied to have some houses of his, at the corner of King _ and Albany streets, reduced, the total assessment of which was L 350, on the groundlthat all were not tenanted. P l * W orehip asked if there was any abate paent made in nnacoupied places, but Mr Smith replied in the negative. Waterrates ceased while houses were untenanted. The amount was reduced to L34o.—Geerge Border applied to have the assessment on his shop in George street reduced. It fetched a rental of 35s per week, and was assessed at L6o,—Appeal dismissed. —James Fnccor objected to the assessment on a right-of-way in George street, for which he ■ ww chflrgcd while he neither owned nor leased it ; and also to the assessment of a fowl-house valuc4 at L9.—Mr Smith agreed p rinjw • wt the j&jto

described the hencoop as a “ most palpablelooking fowl-house,” and caused some amusement by saying he was willing to honestly furnish , his Worship with all the eggs laid by his fowls in the course of the year; aud further, to guarantee that the numbers of fowls which he then had should not be reduced, and by stating that hejhad no witnesses to cal!-—oonsidering'hisrespectability a sufficient proof that he was speaking the truth.—His Worship having ordered that the claim should be struck out, defendant said that as a proof of its net being on account of the paltriness of the assessment he objected, he would forward a cheque for Ll to his Worship next day to be handed to the Benevolent Institution.—An objection by Anne Wilson to the amount placed on her house (L 26) on the ground that she only paid Ll7 last year was dismissed. Edward M‘Pee, stationer, objected to the assessment (L4O) on his shop in George street, being LlO more than ; valued at last year. Reduced to L3s.—James Black objected to the assessment {: 24) on a two-roomed cottage occupied by him in Leith street and valued at LIS last year. Appeal dismissed.—John M. Brown applied to have the valuation {LI2O) on the Salutation Hotel and store reduced. After hearing evidence, his Worship decided to reduce it to Lloo.—An appeal by Guyßennett to the excessive amount, viz., L3OO, at which the Pier Hotel occupied by him was valued, was dismissed, the valuation being upheld. Several cases were struck out, there being no appearance of the appellants.