RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3639, 21 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, October 21. (Before T. A. Maasford, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Peter Wcekes was fined 10s, wito the alternative of twen.y-fom hours’ imprisonment; Anne M'Namara, an old offender, who only came out of gaol on the previous day, after undergoing a sentence of fourteen days’ for drunkenness, 40a, or fou teen days’. On a further charge of habi* tual drunkenness she was sent to gaol for fourteen days’. Destroying Plants. -Jane Henderson pleaded guilty to a charge lai-i on the information of James Simpson, sexton, of having, on October 21, destroyed a number of plants in tie Church of England Cemetery.—Prosecutor said that complaints of flowers being destroyed in tee cemetery were of daily occurrence. Defendant on being charged with the destruction showed witness where she had “ planted ” the flowers —His Worship re narked that the practice of stealing flowers from graves was becoming a very common one, probably because the 'public did not know the large fine which they were liable to pay, which was one not exceedirg L2O, As he did not believe that defendant; had. taken the flowers wilfully, he would only impose a nominal penalty of Is and costa, accompanied with a caution to her and o:hers that, if a similar case came before him, he would inflict a much heavier fine. CIVIL OASES. Cameron v. Andrew was a claim for LlO, value of a dog.—Mr Turton, who appeared for plaintiff, explained that the dog had worried tae sheep of defendant, who, in consequence, killed it.—Mr Harris (for the defendant) contended that his client was justified in killing the dog, as it had no collar on, and especially as it had been in the habit of worrying his sheep.— Plaint-ff agreed to take a nonsuit, and was according nonsuited, wi hj costs. ’

Logan v. Thompson.—Claim L 49 15s, damage done to plaintiff s confectionery shop through defendant’s horse bi eaking through his window on October 12.—Mr Harris for plaintiff and Mr Barton for defendant, who paid L 5 into Court.—Plaintiff said that a large window broken cost him a pound; while the twenty-one show glasses and contents which were in the window were each worth 30s. The other articles damaged by the breakage were charged for at a moderate price. The other globes were full of the most valuable confectioneries —Mr Barton objected to the questions put. If his witnesses spoke the truth he would prove the claim to be almost a downright swindle. —Mr Harris ; I suppose my learned friend’s next contention will be to try and prove that the collision was a make-up between plaintiff and defendant’s man.—Plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr Barton as follows :. Do I understand you to solemnly swear that this horse’s neck did L 49 15s worth of damage ?—More than that. Was that horse a camel leopard?—l don’t know. Did he eat the lollies?—He might have done so, thinking they were beaus ? (Laughter.)— There were beans in the window.—(Renewed laughter.)— Evidence was also given by Arthur Merry and folia Tilbury.—John Kroon, confectioner, was the next witness. He refused to be sworn, owing to religious scruples —His Worship : Does your religion exclude you from taking the oaih?—Witness : It is plainly stated in the Scriptures that we must not take oaths. His Worship decided to take the evidence for what it was worth. He saw no reason why witness should not be sworn. Mr Kroon then gave evidence as to the value of confectionery. —Mr Barton said the accident occurred in this manner ; A man was riding by defendant on hoiseback, and, in attempting to crack his own horse, cracked defendant’s horse, causing it to go through plaintiff’s window. Only one pane was smashed. —Joseph Marshall, driver to defendant, said that after his horse’s head had gone through the window, and he had got it clear, he spoke as to the amount of damage done. Witness thought L2 or L 3 would cover the damage,— William Swift, driver of the George street dust-cart, produced nine glass stoppers, which he asserted that he took away from Logan’s shop on the day in question. There were only about a pound or perhaps a little more, of destroyed lollies put into the cart.—David Dyer, formerly a confectioner’s assistant, said that L 4 or L 6 would cover the damage done.— Robert Kirk, salesman, for Calvert and Campbell, said that there would not be much difficulty to judge by the stoppers, in getting the class of goods produced—confectioners’ show botthis city. The bottles would cost about seven shillings each.—Defen (ant was also called, and Mr Harris declined to crossexamine him,[as his character here was sufficiently well known.—Defendant denied ever having been in the Court for anything disgraceful.— Mr Harris said he was here for assault three mouths ago.—Defendant said that at that time Mr Harris brought out something against him for whh-h he had a go°4 mind to pull tym.—(Laughter.)— Hi*

Worship considered the case was the result of au accident, and one in which the claim should be as moderate as possible and not an excessive one. He had no right to dispute the statement of plaintiff, corroborated as it was by several witnesses. He assessed the demages at L 27 and costs, less- -the amount paid into Court.—Mr Barton ; If your Worship credits plaintiff it ought to be with L 49 10s, the amount sued for. in a case like this a man might swear what he likes, and if the u- V^l m- - ves get a full verdict.— Hi.- Worship could not sanction perjury.— Mr Barton replied that if he had the power to appeal, which unfortunately he had not. he should certainly contest the reasonableness of the award.