RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3543, 1 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, July 1. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Mary Anne Harris was line i 40s, with the option of fourteen days’ imprisonment. Illegally on the Premises. —Ellis Burrows was charged with being illegally on the premises of Francis Glads ni, in Albany street, on Monday.— vir M'Keay defended and asked for a remand to enable him to call witnesses to character.—Formal evidence was given by complainant, to th effect that he heard some one in his yard, and on going out found prisoner there. A remand till to-morrow was granted. HIOEON stealing —Wm. Myall (14) and Joseph Scott (13) were charged with stealing two pigeons, of the value of 3s, from the Supreme Court Hotel.—The offence was clearly proved,—His Worship said that, seeing the boys were under fourteen, instead of sending them to gaol, he had power to order them to be whipped in prison by he proper officer. He was unwilling to send the boys to gaol at all if he could believe that this was the first time they had gone wrong, and that they would take a warning from the distressing position they were in bad for themselves, and very distressing, he was sure, for their parents. Under the 82nd section he had power, whe i the property taken does not exceed2os, to dismiss the case. If the parents would undertake to flog their boys, he would not send them to gaol for that purpose.—Mr Scott: I will do ao.L-His Worship: Now, if you undertake to reprove the boys—to punish them for what they have done, they may go till this day month, and the police will please see what they do in the meantime.—Both boys then left the Court with their parents.

CIVIL CASES. Gibson v. M‘Keay.—Fraud summons for a claim of L2l on an I o U. Lefend --nt having offered to pay L 4, the case was dismissed.

A. Solomon v. J. T. Telfer.—Cl dm, L 5 I4s 6d on an I O U, L 4 la for a gold chain not returned, given to defendant to repair, and LI 10s for a pencil cise, making a total of Lll 5a 6d. There was a set off of L2 4s for repairs, and defendant paid into Court L 6 Ids 6d—also 1 Is as cost?. Plaintiff admitted the set-off. —Mr Cook said the first item was covered by the payment into Court, the only dispute being as to the value of the chain and pencil —His Worship : Do you admit that you have possession of the chain ?—Mr Cook : Yes; my client also admits possession of the pencil case, but says that more than the value is asked for them. —Plaintiff said that he gave defendant a chain to repair about two months ago. When he applied for it, defendant said that, in consequence of the negligence of one of. his boys, who had put it in acid, the chain was spoiled, some of the lintvs being destroyed. Defendant had re peatedly promised >o provide a chain of the same pattern, but had not done so. Defendant sent him the chain, but as it was entirely unsaleable he had to return it. It was worth 9 s per on .ce wholesale, and, as neaf as he could ascertain its weight when defendant got it was ISdwta The pencil case was also destroyed by one of defendant’s boys wnile repairing it.—(Laughter.) If defendant would replace the pencil case and chain, he would be quite satisfied —This was the case.—Mr Cook stated that his defence was simply that the value of the good? was overestimated.—John T. Telfer, working j eweller, said that he received the chain produced, to repair some time ago. Its weight would have been 12dwts, and its value L2 14s, This was at the rate of 90s per ounce. He valued the pencil case at IDs. —Plaint ff: Will you tell his Worship how that chain gut spoiled ? Defendant said that he gave it to one of his boys to repair, and he put it through the fire. The heat caused some of the links to lessen in weight. He afterwards put some coloring (not acid) on itj but

the chain, being a weak one, would not stand it.—Plaintiff: Would not the acid through which the boy put the chain lessen the weight all through ?—Defendant : By a few grains.—George Young said the chain would be worth 90s • per ounce. —R. H. Bailey had weighed the chain, and found its weight to be 12dwts; with the missing links it would weigh about half a dwt more. The price of the gold in the trade was 90s per ounce. The pencil case was worth 10s or 15s. —Plaintiff : Is it nor. a fact that putting this chain through the acid would not only destroy the weight of the links that are missing, but would lessen its weight all over?— Witness ; Tiifliug. It might mike a difference of eight or nine grains—His Worship: Would “ sweat ” a pennyweight? Witness : I don’t think it. His Wo ship considered that p'aimiff had made an exceedingly fair offer by saying that if goods like those spoiled could have been given to him, he would have been perfectly satisfied. In cases «f this kind he must lean rather to pla ntiff chan to defendant. Defendant was the wrongdoer in spoiling the goods entrusted to him to repair. The 10 U was admitted, and he found the true weighc of the chain 124dwts, though it may have sweated another 4dwt. This would make its value L2 18s 3d, and he allowed Iss as the value of the pencil case. The set-off, L2 2s, was admitted. Judgment was given for L 7 10s fid, with coats, less the amount paid into Court, or LI in addition to that sum.

Wilson v. Saunders.—tlaim L 3 15s, for goods supplied.—Defendant produced his discharge from the Bankruptcy Court, and the case was dismissed.