RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3962, 5 November 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, November 5. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Before the business of tho Court commenced, Mr Dennistouu referred to tho case of MM.area v. < iorley, heard on Wednesday. He said he had not seen the particulars of demand before appearing in Court; and the ouly point he understood to be in dispute was the item of a toilette set. He was unaware that there was any liquor m the account. As his Woiship was aware, he disagreed with his Worship's view of the law on this subject, but ho would be very sorry to smuggle any item through tho Court, eai-ecially when tho other side w.*s not represented by a solicitor.- His Vv orship said when the case was before him he had not looked into the bill of particulars, and he understood that the only objection was to the toilrtto set, valued at LI 3s 6d, omitted by plaintiff when posting his ooks. He remembered asking defendant’s wife if theie w. re any other objection to the claim, and if she answered that there was he omitted to take it up. 1 1 appears she said something about some old tom. His Worship went on to say that when a newspaper reporter furnished an i,.proper repott ofia case ia Court, appended any remark to the tail of it, published a garbh d account of it, or attempted to make a joke of the proceedings. he rendered himself ano the proprietors of che newspapers liable to criminal pi oceedings. He was a friend of liberty himself, and did not wish to curtail the liberty of the Tress, but care must be taken that that liberty does not degenerate into license. His Worship then read an extract from “Russell on Crimes,” by which it was laid down that the publication of cases in court coidd not be protected unless it contained a true account of the proceedings, Mr Justice Duller had said that there was nothing that interfered more greatly with the welfare of the public than the animadversions often made on the • ourts o' Justice. If people felt themselves unfairly treated (continued his Worship) the law oifwred them a remedy. Here they had ouly to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice lo the matter, and if it was found that a Magistrate had acted in a corrupt or .inproper manner a remedy would soon be applied. He had repeatedly seen letters in the papers here r< fleeting on himself, hut he took no notice of them. He would state that lie did not look at the particulars of account in M’Laicu v. Corley, or he would haw struck out the bottle of ** what was facetiously called ‘ old tom.’ ” It defendant applied fui a rehearing of the case on the grounds of the old tom being charged he would grant it, 1 u(. people must not expect to get their grievances remedied hy writing to newspapers—their complaints must Be made to head quarters. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases Thomas White v, George Stokes, claim LT 6s, for groceries sup-

plied; Forster ▼. Hyde, L2, for board and lodging; W. and J. Secularv John M’Donald, L 25, on a dishonored promissory note. Grainger V. Kelly.—Claim i 10 9s, for good' supplied. Defendant admitted the d*bt, an judgment was given for the amount claimec with costs.

iHeynr v. Anstead.—Claim L 9 15s, for g :oin supplied. Defendant admitted the claim, an. judgment was given for plaintiff for theamoun: claimed, with coats.

J, Hill v. Thomas M‘Kay.—Claim L3l, fni dishonored pronvssory note. Mr Mount a] pea-red for plaintiff; Mr E. Cook for defendant. —Mr Cook said e.efendant had been willing t p-<y the claim, but had not the means to pay i. iu fu’l. Ihe amount was due for a watch Defendant now offered te pav it in monthly instalments of L 4. —His Worship panted :r order for the amount to he paid in instalment of L 4 per month, in default of any one payment thirty days’ imprisonment. The fiist instalment to be paid in a fortnight’s time. H. Houghton and Co. v. William Jen, masterjof the barque Resolution.— C aim 1.3 3s, dimaee caused to 210 hags of ground bark through defendant’s negligence on the voy :gi from Melbourne to Dunedin, together with costs of survey on the same. Mr J Smith appeared for plaintiffs; Mr Haggitt for defendants who pleaded not guilty of negligence,’ami not indebted. [Left sitting ]