RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3589, 24 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, August 24. (Befape L Bathgate, Esq., E.M.) Drunkenness. —William Blackford was discharged with a caution ; James Match was fined 40s, with the option of ten days’ imprisonment; John Manderson, log, or three days’ ; Mary Anne Harris, 40s, or fourteen days’. The last-named de r endant was further sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, for being an habitual drunkard. IftES|P4ss. —Michael Golding and Richard Darby, charged on the information of Thomas Farney, the birrack*master, with trespassing on the old Immigration Barracks, were let off with a caution.—His Worship sug* gested that a regulation should be passed preventing persms visiting the barracks without permission ; they should get leave to visit every public institution. Obscene Language, —Thomas Brown was charged with using obscene language in JPrinces street on the 22nd inst.—Defendant £hat he had only had one glass of brandy, that although he had been fifteen years fa the polony, this tyas the liist timo that fae had been ‘in' a pdiicdm&if’s bauds.—Sob-lpgppptpr Mallajrd gave thchfafeudanb a good clfar^qtcp.— H,e was deed 20s, or ten days’ imppisoument, and a farther charge of drunkenness was dismissed. CIVIL CASE. Dr Borrows v. Wm. Smith.—This wai an application by defendant for a re-hearlng in thig collision between defendant’s coach and plaintiff’s carriage—beard lately, and in which his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the sum of L 45. —Mr Stout submitted that the evidence did not disclose any negligence on the part of the defendant, but rather on plaintiff’s part. As his Worship sat as judge aad jury there could be no appeals On points of law.—{nis Worship : The discovery of new evidence), —lf the Court restricted the application to hew evidence it wo,did be making this Court far more strict than the Supreme, Court, where seven grounds for re hearing were denned. In this Goht.t £b,ere were no grounds) thus leaving * them as wide gs possible. The reason he' made those introductory ohgprVations was that in a previous Qkse—Johnson y. an action for s aiader—-a 1 pe-hearing was refused, and, on action being commenced in the Supreme Court, Johnson left the Province and did not dare to show up. With all due respect to the Bench, he would by taking the evidence of plaintiff’s own witness, clearly negative the ca-o made out by plaintiff 1 * counsel in opening the case, that there was a dehoerate and reckless collision. The second ground was that it yas proved tj}&p theTe was negligence on the

part of plaintiff. The doctor had cone round the corner at other than a walking pace, thus infringing the bye-law. Again, had he gone on a couple of feet further hie would have prevented the accident. The last point was that the damages awarded were excessive.—Mr Stewart opposed the application. It would be difficult to conceive a case, in which the evidence was so strong or so conclusive with the judgment the Court gave. Had his Worship come to any other conclusion, it might have been possible to have concurred with the arguments of bis learned friend—-namely, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.—The application was disallowed.