GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Issue 70, 23 June 1866, Page 2

GREYMOUTH.

■;""■"'/■■ Thursday; Jdne 21;' -^r- '.'■ (BeforeW: H^Revell^Es^.y RfM^'Supposed Lunacy. — A man, Iwlip was evidently: in a thoroughly destitute "and Avretched; CQiiditipri, 'was brought atp pri siis- - picion of being of unspund mind. "rvCpnstabli^ Slattery stated that on Wecbiesday^^alllßßl two o'clock j the defendant was; brought''out of the hospital and given into his .charge by one of the warders, as a lunatic, and he took him to the station. r Dr CotteriU stated, that he had examined ;the defendank, and ..had come tp the conclusion that if he.were.pßs manded for a fortnight, arid properly tsiken care of he would recover. He did no££pnV -sider the defendarittd.be of'nnsourid' inihd. • He was evidently suffering more frpm^wealc-; ness caused :l)y: exposure and want of ;fpod. D.r Dpa^e said he first saw the defendant a. week ago, when he Avas sent to, him iri'chargQ of a constable to be exannned. He w«as then in a very woak bodily state,: and also weak In his intellect. Hetook the defendant round, to Dr Fpppaly, and Ihpy bpsi examiiiedvhim. He was then in a most Avretched'condition, and from his own statement and general appearance, hs-had not eaten any food several days, and*was in an extreme state of : weakness.; Hearing that there was no tboni in tha, camp where the defendant-could get medical ait niance. the "\vitness urged Dr Fbppoly to" admit"him' into^the hospital;^ as they both, agreed that he only required medical treatment. He was thieii: admitted into the hospital. The witness had exariiined the defeqdantthat mprnirig; anilJftrand him vastlyimproved in:; health since ,h'ei:last saw.hiir, but he was of opinion that thejiiefendant was still of weak; intellect, arid^e; thought it would be advisablg to give hini medical treatment before pronouncing him fa bs a.confirmedlunatic.^ From whatefie'hadseen of the defendant he believed hini to be perfectly harmless, and not darigerons either tohimself or others,, but he certainly rcquiredl'3ppking after. The Magistrate ordered the jtef&dant to b.e sent to Hokitika Hospital for^ medical treatment. : ;' ;: '-'- ';'"■ ■''■■\')}H ': ;h '■■■•■:: Dog Stealing.-^JohnHore was; charged,on the information of William Potham, with • steaKrig a cattle dog of the value of ISQ. :tt appeared from the evidence that this.was a case of v disputed ownership, Both men Claiming the dog, the one because"he bought it, : the other because h&^ in the possession of the^plairiitiff wheiivit was forcibly tafen-froihhlm'by th^blefenclariti bn the beach near the Aucklkrid iriish- The plaintiff had -taken proceedings' against the ■ defendant on the cmfeside of the Court !at Hokitika, to recoverTthe-yalue of ,the dog, arid obtained judgment by defaulti^ufehearing that t\e defendant hadrleft hisi j^ace \?ith the dog, he followed him here^Vand filed, a criminal informatipn agdii^; hini*iristeaci of taking out a distress warrant at Hokitika to recpyerthe.amoiiritpf4the:judgmentj;he had obtained. TheMagisfeatedismis'sed^theras^ but ordered.the dog to be impounded by th^ police, in order to give the plaintiff an opportunity of taking::out the distress warrant and a^gunonit f ■• ' "+"^;' ■'. - : -. "," CrvTL:;CASES.;' ':'V:^^'- v Watts and Co! v. Wilson—Claiinpf L4los ~for goods. Judgment by confession," with costs. ..:'_'■■• ■>■?,: :--".{--\'-: ;-;.. ,;v;-^. ': - ." : TJbos.: CrnndwelTv, C. iiortpn-^Ciaim of L 8 43 for: board. • Judgment by^efau^with costs. v- ""'.;."""'. '■".'■.■' '' ' ~~: '~-'r-'-:'': e- <' :: -' ". Geiskingvv^Wiisori^DiEmissed .for nonappearance. : ■.■/■..■ ••. ■■■■■£■* <:■■'{. '■'■;■ „-;-:;-o; jprledhill v. Stevens— Claim of L 3 4s Judgment by de^auMv withcosts^O i :^:"- ; ' ■ Wilbani^ P.innack'vo-Martiii i;JEettQedy— Claim of Lip,-the yalub'pf goodsrjiaced in rth6j;de|endarit's | 'care- a^d supfpsed to have Ibe&vldst liy him; The "facts ofthe?;casewere thatithe plaintiff went to Hokitika frcm the Grey/iin October last, leaving iri'the possession of Mr George Siminorife three swags, coik.. tairiing articles to the value of LlOai^yjHßf structipns to forward them wfilß™B^^HP He afterwards wrote for his goo^ffl^B^ received them, atidwhea he returned place and asked for his gcods, Simmo^fcyfc him-he had given them, to t^e de?^^P who was ;theii a tamer i^weea^h^SQi^r and Hokitika, with iristructions toleaVeMem at a place on the beachigaUedithe^iiQite house ,-f^kery v. Simriipns' -was l-call^. and proved the^elrjery of theJthree^^tsS defendant m his dray-^an^^r^ilf^! tcV leave them, -ferwere aU:addres^d,;i;; ■ WilU^ R6b^who^| passenger;;in JM;deferid^'^dr|^pri the occ^MmonWhich:the;swags; iri^qiießtibn^were taken, projedJbßae^yer^ of tftem by Sim-

.M^iTto the defendant. As th/y passed the" Bakery he pemfided the-de-fendant about the swags, im% was told to:. '-. mind his. own business. The.fdefendant got > drank on the way down. The swags were : not delivered, but were lyingsn the defend- • ?nt's di-ay when the witness left it at Hokir , tika. The defendant's case was a simple ■ v denial of everything. He had no knowledge .of the swags in question, and was net aware ' .of ever having lost a swag entrusted to his jeare all the time he was plying on the beach. The Magistrate held the case to be fully proved, and gave judgment for LlO and posts. '