RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3550, 9 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, July 8. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

CIVIL CARES, Mitchell v. Cope.—Fraud summons on a claim of L 4 13s. —Defendant, who failed to appear, was ordered to be sent to gaol for twenty-one days. Christian v. Pavelitch.—Plaintiff, a hairdresser, sought to recover from the defendant, a publican, the sum of LIOO, for damage done to a house of which he was the occupier. Mr Barton, instructed by Messrs Seiywrigbt and Stout, for plaintiff; Mr Harris for defendant.—Mr Barton said the case was simple enough. Plaintiff was a hairdresser and barber in Maelaggan street, carrying on business in a shop there, and adjoining this was a fruiterer’s shop in which he carried on business as a fruiterer. He had been there since 1868, having rented it from one Nathan Salomon, the former owner, who afterwards sold it to Pavelitch. The latter was the landlord now, and plaintiff rents a house at the rate of LI a week, in accordance with an agreement. Pavelitch, a few months ago, seemed to have got a. desire to get rid of Christian, thinking that ho had the shop too cheap. The way he took to get him out of the place was thiS— he first took away a part of the premises, a portion of the fruiterer’s shop. He then ap died to plaintiff for some of the fixtures in the shop Rather than have any bother Christian agreed to sell the fixtures, and thus, so far as "that transaction was concerned, there was an end to it. Pavelitch seemed so emboldened by that conquest that he threw a lot of rubbish ou plaintiff’s ground and kindly removed the water-closet which he used. When plaintiff remonstrated and objected, defendant said he would do as he liked as he was the landlord, and threatened to summon him for removing it for him Defendant then resorted to a most ingenious method—probably taken from some Irish novel (laughter)—making a hole through tbe roof of the room occupied by plaintiff and his wife as a bedroom. —(Loud laughter.' Defendant’s excuse was that it was a skylight; he wanted to give them more light. In consequence of this plaintiff had been obliged to sleep in a kitchen, the bedroom being entirely swamped. His wife’s health had been greatly injured in consequence,—Plaintiff, a man of color, then stated the fasts. He said that defendant had used all kinds of gross epithets a* to bis wife’s character, and foundress ones too.—Witness prevaricating, Mr Barton. hi« counsel, said that if plaintiff did not behave himself he would throw up the case. Plaintiff must recollect that he was in a court of justice. Cross - examined. Mr Harris : There is a plea in which you mention that you intend to sue us for special damages for in j ary to your wife’s health. Are you married to that person you call “ wife?” Witness : It is for the defendant, if he thinks not, to prove the reverse.—Mr Barton : What has t.hat to do with the cas ■ ?—Mr Harris ; When a plaintiff puts in a plea for special damages -for damage done to his wife—then must he prove that that person is his wife. —-Witness: Yes. That woman is my lawful wife. We were married by Dr Stuart in Knox Church four years ago. I can show th it such is the case by my marriage lines —Mr Harris ; Then show them,—Witness produced his marriage certificate. —Mr Barton : Now are you satisfied that they are man and wife ?—Mr Harris (looking at tbs document): Yes. It would appear that 'bis is a marriage certificate, and certified to by the Registrar—Witness : I am scandalised all over the town. My wife is callei a . and 1 suppose I must “stick” my marriagelines on my door. -Mr Harris: Now, Mr Christian, how many married wives have you living?— Witness : No more than one Hare you ever been lawfully married before ? -The question was objected to, and his Worship held that witness was not bound to answer it. as he might criminate himself.— Mr Harris : Have you not a wife to whom vou are lawfully married living in Hokitika ?—Witness ; No ; I have not.—Mr Barton : Now I hops y u are perfectly satisfied ?—Mr_ Harris :I am very glad to hear it for plaintiff s sake, but I cannot say very much for the taste of the other party. About a doz?n witnesses were called, all of whom deposed that they were called in by the plaintiff to inspect the house after the defendant had cut the “skylight” iu it. —Mr Harris, having stated the case for the defence, called the defendant, who said that he was the landlord of the Universal Hotel, and owner of a shop occupied by plaintiff. The receipt produced, and dated March 3. was for L 6. Plaintiff, on giving it to wit ness, agreed to give up possession of the fruiterer’s shop as w-II as the key. He gave up possession the same day, and fulfilled the terms of the agreement, —Mr Barton objected to the question.—Mr Harris ; Plaintiff denied giving up possession of the key. I shall prove that he stole the key, if you like to put it in strong language ; that ho took the key, and that is nothing morp than theft. —Witness continued his evidence, add; ing that he went to plaintiff about the skylight, but as he was out witness saw his wife. The latter gave him permission to put a skylight in the roof, saying that it would be convenient to have it done at once. Plaintiff was at home during the day. and the work was going on while he was at home He did not complain of the matter during that day. The work was only done for plaintiff’s convenience, and not to annoy him. His Worship said that had the first part of the claim, viz., that of breaking into the house by removing part of the roof, been proved to have been done to annoy plaintiff he would have had to look upon it as a very ferious matter indeed ; but, according to the evidence adduced, he could not so regard it. He could not. after looking at the nature of the act, believe that it Ijad done for the purpose of driving plaintiff away from the premises, therefore, under that count no damages oeuld be awarded. Under the second count, that of breaking into the yard, he believed that defendant had misconstrued his rights as landlord, insomuch as he had removed things from the ground ; whereas, so long as plaintiff was in lawful possession of the premises, nobody had a right to put a foot upon them. Defendant having been guilty of trespass under this plea, a sum of L 5 and costs would be awarded.

Margaret Patterson v. John Farquharsen. Claim LlO, for damages occasioned rhrough defendant having failed to carry out a representation made by him to plaintiff that he would provide her with forty boarders, in consequence of which representation she had given up her business as a restaurant-keeper at Port Chalmers, and incurred the expense of fitting up a boardinghouse. Mr Barton for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant.—lt appeared that the representations made were that defendant haying taken a contract at Port Chalmers, promised ■plaintiff that she should have forty workmen as lodgers, while she never had more than twelve or fourteen of them, and these left after a short stay.—For the deleave it was

urged that the accommodation afforded by the house wa» not sufficient for more than fcweaty-two lodgers, and those of defendant’s men who had lodged with her had become dissatisfied with the provisions given them 5 and defendant, in the course of bis examiua* ion, denied that he had undertaken to get his men to lodge with plaintiff. He had only informed her that a number of men would be employed on the work, and there was a probability, if she could accommodate them, that they would go to her.—Judgment was reserved.

Muir v. De Berg —Claim 9s, balance of account for a hat sold. —Judgment was given for the amount, with costs.

Same v. Burton, manager of the Siamese Troupe. —Claim LI 3s fid, for a black hat.— Judgment was given by default, with casts.

Thursday, July 9. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Obscene Language.— John Liddle, alien Hobart Town Jack, and Margaret Clarke not appearing in answer to their summonses, warrants were ordered to be issued for their apprehension.—Sophia Bates charged Mary Moulding with using insulting language in Maclaggan street, with intent to provoke a breach ef the peace.—Mr E. Cook, who defended, submitted that both information and summons were defective, and for that reason he asked the Bench to dismiss the case.—His Worship pointed out that they might be amended.—Mr Cook argued that the power to amend was discretionary, and looking at the facts it ought not to be amended. His main objection was that no injury was alleged to have been done to any person, neither the summons uor information saying to whom the language was addressed. He submitted that both criminally and civilly the offence must be clearly stated,— His Worship decided to hear evidence, but stated that in future it was desirable that the person to whom the language was used should be stated, —lnformant said that she was the wife of John Bates, a bricklayer. She had been here thirteen years, and had known defendant for a number of years. While walking along Maclaggan street, en Sunday afternoon, defendant passed her, and turning round abased her. Witness did not like to express the words used. (In being informed that she must do so, she mentioned them.) The cause of the disturbance was that she was married te a man on last Friday with whom defendant had been formerly living.—By Mr Cook : She was married in Knox Church, by Dr Stuart, and produced her marriage lines. She had previously got her living by being a “ gay girl" on the town. She was not having a “connubial” walk with her husband on the day of the alleged disturbance, but was walking with a “ gay " friend. Since the eventful Friday she bad not spoken to defendant.— Mr Cook said that plaintiff’s husband had cohabited with defendant, and that when plaintiff got married she threw this occurrence in a defiant manner into defendant’s face. —The defendant was dismissed with a caution, as informant’s evidence was net corroborated.

[Left sitting.]