RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4229, 14 September 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wedkxsday, September 13. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) - Judgment was given for plaintiff, by default, in the following case :—Walker v. Pratt—Claim,iLll 6s sd, balance of account due for clothing supplied. Doig v. M'JNamara.- Claim, Lll 6s Sd, for groceries supplied. Defendant admitted the debt, and judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with coats. .Doigv. Spinx—Claim, LSB 16s 10d.y for groceries supplied. In this case a similar result was arrived at.—ln Doig v. Hanson plaintiff was nonsuited. ' * J. R. Stamper v. Annie Main.—Claim, L 6 18s Sd, on a promissory note. Mr A. Bathgate appeared for defendant, who gave notice that she would plead coverture. -Mr Stamper objected to counsel appearing ior - defendant unless under authority of her husband.—Sis Worohip said by that i \ meut Mr Stamper would put himself oat of -'k-i Court, for he would that defendant was, 3 marped .^QinMii^efea?/ ■•• '•-'"•• - ;i ■■-■■'<■'! .fei-i.sY s?rb;iT

font'was put in the box, and stated that she was married in 1803, in Java. Her husband is still living. Witness had not a copy of Her certificate of marriage,'it having been burnt some time ago,—Yir Stamper submitted this was not sufficient proof of marriage.—His Worship adjourned the case for a week, to allow plaintiff to adduce authorities. Kincaid and M'Queen v. Birchall and others—Claim L 46 18s 6d, the value of a pump furnished to the Lowbnrn Mining and Sluicing Company, in which defendant Birchall was a partner. In this case his Worship, delivered judgment for the amount claimed against defendants Birchall and Colclongh, who have a right of action for contribution against the other defendants. Faithful v. Booker.—Claim LlO, damages sustained by plaintiff through the noisome smell and incessant noise created by defendant's fowls. Mr Joyce appearedfor plaintiff; Mr Howorth for defendant.-W. W. Vause, engraver, said he lived in a house belonging to plaintiff at the top of Stafford street, near the Town Belt. About 15ft fiom the house defendant had a fowlhouse and yard, in which he kept fowls, ducks', £eese, and turkeys. Witness was greatly annoyed by the noise and smell ofthefowls. Thb y ard they were kept in was in a filthy state! defendant kept about fifty fowls, besides geeW, ducks, and turkeys.—Mr Howorth *hat no evidence could be given as to anything Du * fowls— ducks, and turkeys were £ot j mentioned in the plaint. Witness, cross examined, said he believed plaintiff kept fowls under his own house, but not lately. The people all round kept fowls. Witness had a closet under his own house, but there was no smell from that.—L. M'JDermU, printer, gave evidence as to the nuisance created by the fowls, geese, etc.—J. M'Lauchlan said the fowls were no annoyance te him, but he believed they annoyed the children on the Belt. Witness had no smell.—Mrs J. Rogers said she. formerly lived in one of plaintiff's houses, but had to leave it from the noise and smell of defendant's fowls.—Cross examined : The only reason for witness leaving the houne was that it was too large—atleaßtshtmeantone reason. Plaintiff himself need to keep fowls at his house. It was the ducks and geese that made the noise.—Mrs J. Roberts said the fowls were a great nuisance, owing to the noise they made. bhe did not notice much smell. Cross examined : Plaintiff kept fowls till lately nearer witness's house than defendant's were, but she was sure that it was defendant's fowls that made the noise, because she could see them through her window even of a dark night. It was not the fowls that made the noise, but the geese.—William Faithful, plaintiff, described the nuisance created by defendant's poultry, robbing him of his rest at nights and causing a great smell. The consequence was that witness's tenants were continually leaving his houses. He had counted from seventy to ninety fowls and eighty-three ducks in defendant's yard. Cross-examined: Mrs Faithful had never, to witness's knowledge, boasted of having poisoned defendant's fowls. Witness kept fowls up till a fortnight ago.—Before evidence for the defence was given, his Worship said he was prepared to lay down that the term " fowls" was a generic one, and included ducks, Seese, and turkeys, as well as cocks and several witnesses had been examined for the defence, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for 10s, with costs-