RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3583, 17 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Alonday, August 17. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. Daniel Ferguson was fined 10s, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment ; , Marion M Donald, dOs, or fourteen da> s’imprisonment; Robert Grace was discharged with a caution. CIVIL CASES. Collie v. D. B. Sorley.—Claim 15s 4id for goods supplied.—His Worship : Out of the claim of 15s 44d, 10£ d is for butter, and the rest for whisky. If you choose to sell under 20s worth of liquor you cannot recover. Judgment for with costs. Same v. Barry.—tlaim L 4 16$ 7d foi goods sold. Rum was the main staple in this case.—Judgment was given for the full amount, there being a contra account for clothing, which established a set-off. Godso v. Gray and Drummond.—Claim L 7 10s for the nondelivery of goods bought by plaintiff at a sale. Mr 0. E, Chapman for plaintiff, Mr Stout for detendant.— Plaintiff was nonsuited. Blakely v. M‘Kay.—Claim L 9 10s 8d for goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. The Deputy-Superintendent v. Connell.— Plaintiff sought to have defendant ejected from the old Immigration Barracks, and further to recover L 5, as damages for his illegal possession of the rooms.—Defendant said that lj,e had gone through the country from one place to another to try aud get accommodation, but was unable to do so. —Mr Stout, who appeared for the Government, said a number of fami iea had remained in the barracks fjr a considerable time without trying to get houses. The Go verument did not wish to act harshly, but on the contrary, desired to treat kindly with them. Several recently arrived immigrants had been put to great inconvenience, but had got houses, while defendant and others had been in the barracks for months. When they went to the barracks it was understood they could get instant notice to quit, but had refused to do so when requested, and had put the Government to endless bother and inconvenience. Seeing tnat no defence was set up, he asked for °a warrant of ejectment, Ihey did not ask for damages. —Warrant granted. . Same v. Ellis.—Application for warrant of ejectment. Defendant’s wife said that they were in a garret, and had no caudles or coals. As soon as they got a house, they would take it.—Mr Stout said that'he believed that defendant had been offered a house at Kensington, but refused to take it. —Defendant denied this. He said that if lie could get a house that moment he'would take it. He did not wish to remain in the barracks,—Warrant granted.

Same v. Jeremiah Doing.—This was a similar app’ication.— Mr Stout mentioned hat he was instrii r *d t'wt this case was worse than the, rest. Tut! po.ice were called in on >aturday night to keep order. Defendant had been in the Caverabam Barracks f r some months, and on leaving there went to the old depO'. He refused to leave when ordered to do so, and actually set the Government at defiance. Mr Farney, the person in charge, had to put out the lire twice, or the place would have been in flames.— His Worship considered that the Government had done wrong in keeping so many in a state of ha f idleness, while the rest of the community had to work. If defendant had been in the barracks for five months, as was stated, he no longer bad a right to expect to be kept there.—Warrant granted. [Left sitting.]