RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3635, 16 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, October 16. (Before J, Bathgate, Esq., R.M )

1 rdnkenness. —John Fre£than was dia-T charged with a caution. V An Ambitious Marine one of the marines of H. M- S. hlaimbe, wa»; charged with being drunk in Fpl|p street and wish resisting Sergeant the execution of his duty.— ergeant UoldeV' said that at about ten minutes past one w’clt ca yesterday he was called upon by Mr Seager, bootmaker, to eject pr so:ter from his shop in Princes street. On auva'-cing towards prisoner, who was stdpped to his .shirt, ha said that he i,ad__nqt had an pppprtuuity of getting his name up.'butTwas going to do so now.—(Laughter.) He then struck witness a blow with bis Hst in the left eye. Prisoner was-mad froni-the-effeets of -drink. Witness, with the assistance of Mr Seager, ejected him froth the shop. When outside prisoner . pulled , him by the whiskers and threatened tp kick him Prisoner was then put in a cab and driven to the lock-up.—His Worship (addressing prisoner) : You have' 'been charged- with a very. serious dffNjck—assaulting a police officer in the executibn of his duty. The law guards the persons of its <. ffioer.-i as something and if it had not been Jot. the circumstances under which you are placed— your boat going to sail—it would have been my duty to have sent you .to gaol for six months. The ends of justice will be met by my forwarding my notes ‘p the captain, for you to be; dealt with as he. thinks fit. Vnu will be remanded on board .the ship in the custody of the sergeant of marines. • CIVIL CASES. barrack v. Falconer.—(Jlaim LSO, for defendant’s having unlawfully ciit down some timber on plaintiffs land contrary to agreement.—This case was he mi last week, and his Worship, after reviewing the evidence, now gav. judgment for LlO and costs. Lawkins v. Mcholaou.—lp this case, which has been repeatedly before the Court! his Worship gave judgment as follows: —“ The plaintiff is the holder of four bills for L 25 each, drawn by Mr J, Hyde Harris upon and accepted by the defendant. In ordi nary circumstancis, whatever defect there may be in the title of the drawer, the onerous holder requires a new and independent title, and if the acceptor seeks to impeach that title it is for him to prove hi objection j but there is an exception to this rule. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1867, no new contract for an old debt provable under a bankruptcy affords a good ground of action, in Ashley v. Killick (9 L.J., Ex. 34) a bill of exchange given to a solicitor for costs of action was held to be a new security for the old debt, and cut down by the Insolvent Deb to is’ Act. The bills sued for were given- by the defendant to the drawer in satisfaction for a debt provable under his bankruptcy, and as the original debt was discharged thereunder, the title of the drawer of the new security for the old debt is bad, and any action at his instance must fail. it is maintained that plaintiff, as a holuer for value, is entitled to sue, notwithstanding the detect in the drawer’s title. But it has been laid down that, in such circumstances as exist in this ca v .e, it is incumbent on such holder to prove that he gave full value before the note was due and with ©ut collusion. (Chitty on Bills of Exchange. 10 edition, 1859, page 522. JSortham v Latouche, 4 car. and p. 140.) The plaintiff did not purchase the bills in the ordinary way of discount, and in fact did not acquire them till three‘"years after they had come to maturity and been dishonored. The insolvency of the defendant was duly gazetted, and his character and circuthstances were' matters pf public notoriety. The' purchase of the bills so long after their being dishonored, and when apparently they were jrrecoyerable, is a (transaction of an extraordinary kind, whiqlj requires further explanation than has been giyep. Ag the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove that he received the bills without collusion pud without notice, which he has not satisfactorily done, 1 am of opinien he pannot recover. Judgment will be for the defendant, with costs.

Kobcrt Rossbotham and J. P. Peake, im plement dealers, v. Anne Diamond, hotelkeeper.—Claim L2O, loss and damage sustained by defendant having seized and taken certain goods and chattels the property of plaintiffs.—Mr Stewart for plaintiffs, Mr Jtl -rris for defendant, who pleaded not indebted ajtpi not guilty to the claim.—The goods in Question had been lying on some ground in Crawford street, which was let by defendant to one Hamilton. Thn sum of Ll2 10s was due for rent, and defendant seized* the goods and detained them' for four days r*! o then to pay defendant LlB to obtain possession of them.—Mr Hai'ris asked fpr an adjournment for the production of the witness Hamilton—a most important witness for the defence. case was adjourned for a week.