RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3570, 1 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, July 31. (Before J, Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunk and Disorderly. —Mary Arm Garris was fined 40s, with the option of fourteen days’ imprisonment ; Thomas B Fogarty IDs, or forty-eight hours’ ; and for damaging Constable Dunnett’s uniform 20s, or in default six days’ imprisonment, besides being ordered to pay 203, the damage done to the uniform. d’l.xauder Miles was discharged with a caution. Stabbing WITH A Kn fe.— Wm. Henry Roxwell was charged, on remand, with maliciously wounding Joseph '.shley by striking him with a knife—tlis Worship decided not to proceed with the charge as laid—that of an indictable offence. He did not consider the offanec of a sufficiently s miens nature to commit the accused for trial. —A charge of < ommon assault was thou preferred, and evidence similar to that adduced in the other charge given.—A woman named Anne lleid, with whom accused had been cohabiting, was called for the d.fence, ?nd den el that accused bad struck prosecutor with the knife, was cross-examined by the poli-e as to her antecedents, and denied that she was in the habit of inveigling men into the house. —His Worship considered the evidence very conflicting, lie could not understand how any man could got wounded with a kaife similar to th it alleged to have been used,

and receive injuries so slight as the wounds on prosecutor’s face. Accuse 1 was discharged. CIVIL CASES. Driver, Stewart, and Co. v. Thomas M'Kay.—Claim LSI 5s on a dishonored bill. —Judgment was given by default for the amount claimed, with costs. M'fntosh v. Mornington Road Board.— Chiim i4S 13s Cd for carting metal —Mr Bathgate for plaint iff $ Mr Stout for defendants, who paid LSB 4s into Court. The real dispute was whether the agreement was at the rate of 23s or 20s per day. Defendants contended that it was the rate of 20s, and plaintiff 235, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

Murray v. OAh Tong—Claim L 33 Sa, on a bill of exchange,—Judgment was given by default with costs.

Dr. Borrows v. T. M. Smith.—Claim LIOO as damages sustained through defendant having, on the 21st of Juiy, negligently and neglectfully managed his horse and coach so that the said burse and coach was driven against plaintiff’s carriage, and plaintiff and his servant were wounded and their carriage broken Mr Stewart for plaintiff, Mr Stout for defendant. —Mr Stewart, in stating the facts, said that plaintiff sought to recover the sum of LIOO as damages occasioned through, the reckless—ho might say deliberately rc kless—manner iu which defendant managed his coach on the day in 4 icstion. The day was the Mayoral election, and at the time of the accident plaintiff was opposite to the Oddfellows’ Hall, and as close to the side of the road as he could conveni-

ently get. Defendant was coming from the Octagon, and apparently going to Palmerston, to which place he drives his coach, and when opposite the Oddfellows’ Hall was following iu the rear of a cab. Several cabs and machines of one kind or another were opposite to the hall. The plaintiff was going up and the defendant down the street, and when iUe latter got opposite the plaintiff he lashed his horses, made a spurt, and drove against defendant’s carriage. Defendant was driving behind a (jab. Thrift was not sufficient width for the three to pass at one time; but had defendant been content to remain behind the cab, all might have passed with safety. Plaintiff’s civ riago was not so heavy as defendant’s coach, and defendant knowing this, drove deliberately into plaintiff’s carnage. Defendant, he believed, was a notoriously careless and neglectful driver. He (Mr Stewart) had been concerned in cases with which he had been connected, (Mr Stout objected to counsel’s remarks.) Plaintiff s carriage W’S broken, he was thrown into the gutter, his hat went into the stream, and, with his groom, he escaped by the skin of bis teeth. After citing several cases bearing on co.-,ch-accidenta, Mr Stewart said that a case involving a greater degree of utter recklessness than the present one had probably never been presented to the Court. JPlaiutiff had. been, deprived of the use of his carriage, which was now undergoing repairs, and was himself, with his groom, thrown out and bruised. Plaintiff was entitled to claim for his groom’s injuries if he was incapacitated from service —Plaintiff then gave evidence, saying he would not go through the same

operation again for LI,OOO, even though ha got oft as well as he did on this occasion, as it was always attended with injuries to the nervous system. He had only had the cartiage in question for eighteen months, and it had coat him LL2O. A tier the accident, the tirat tning ho remembered wag performing a series of revolutions w'ith the groom. j.fr fttout, in stating the case for the defence, said that he could abundantly prove that the plaintiff himself was to blame in the matter, as he had driven round the corner of the Rainbow Hotel too closely, and at a trot, which was contrary to the bye-laws; and that he had not attempted to swerve out' of the way of ths coach.—Defendant deposed

that when he saw the doctor’s huggy he did all he could to stop the coach from colliding with it.—Judgment was reserved.

Saturday, August 1, (Before A. Mercer, Esq., and C. W. Plexman,

Esq., J.P.’s.)

Drunkenness.—Thomas Taylor and Wm. Aubrey were e ch fined ss, with the option of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Pigeon Stealing. Wm. iV*yall and Joseph "cott, two young lads, were charged with stealing two pigeons, the property of Hebert Fenwick, on'the 24th Juno. —The charge was a remanded one, the lads having ueen let off lor a mouth on their fathers’ recognisance that they would appear at tho expiry of that period ; the police to inquire into their conduct in the meantime.—They were further remanded till Monday.