CAMPTOWN.

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 862, 2 May 1871, Page 2

CAMPTOWN.

Wednesday, April 26. (Before Caleb Whitefoord, EBq., R.M.) Four miners from Nelson Creek were charged with being drunk and disorderly, and with resisting the police at Camptown on the 22nd April. They all pleaded guilty ; but urged in mitigation that it was a first offence. The police did not press the charge against the defendants, as they were men who had previously borne good characters. The Magistrate took this into consideration, and informed the defendants that were it not for the mitigating circumstances surrounding the affair» much heavier penalties would be inflicted. After reoeiving a severe lecture, two of the defendants were ordered to pay a fine of L 2 each. One whose conduct had not been so bad as the others was fined Ll, and another was fined L 2, in addition to a fine of Ll, for the damage done to the arresting constable's uniform. The fines were paid. Farrell v. Steen.— Defendant was summoned for assaulting the complainant at Ford's Creek, Blackball, on 15th ApnL This was a quarrel between two mates/ and it arose out of a spree at the christening of a new water race. The case was dismissed. CIVIL CASES, John Molloy v, Samuel Boyle and M.= Cassius.— rAn action to recover L 4 165, ; expenses incurred by plaintiff by going from Paddy's Golly to Hokitika, at the defendants' request, and on their guarantee. No appearance of defendants. Verdict for amount claimed, with costs, and expenses of two witnesses. Muir v. Gunn.— Claim for L 8 4s lOd, goods delivered at Nelson Greek. Verdiofc for amount, with 18s costs. Mary Rice v. Thomas Braid.— An action to recover Ll7 6s, for certain furniture] bedding, &c, alleged to have been taken out of plaintiff's house by defendant during her absence from home. This case occupied the attention of the Court for a considerable time, but it was eventually dismissed, as the plaintiff had entirely failed to prove her case. Costs against plaintiff. Jeremiah M'Carthy v. Nathaniel Dodsoa.—A claim of L4B 4s lOd, for board, lodging, for finding defendant (a blacksmith) a set of tools, working material, and for refreshments. The plaintiff, a publican at No Town, built a shop for defendant, and found him in tools, &0., on terms. They disagreed, and the plain, tiff shut the shop up and refused defendant access to his forge or tools. The defendant filed a set off of LB6 12s 6d, made up as follows :— For work done, LB l2s 6d ;'cash paid on plaintiff's account, L 8 ; value of tools and stock retained by plaintiff, L3O ; damages for loss of trade inconsequence of plaintiff closing the shop, L4O. The case occupied the attention of the Court for some time, and at length a verdict was given for the plaintiff (M'Carthy) for L 27 1 5s 4d, being the amount sued for, less the value of the smith's work done, the cash paid on plaintiff's account, and i&e items charged for drinks in the plaintiff's bill of particulars. Mr Staite for plaintiff. Long v. Stephens. — An action on a dig, honored promissory note for L.30, The plaintiff, a carpenter, erected a house for a person named Loohhead, at Nelson Creek. Lochhead becamo embarrassed, and he made over his property, consisting of an hotel, billiard-table, horses, &c, to defendant, a storekeeper at the same place. The defendant undertook to liquidate certain liabilities incurred by Lochhead, and it came out in evidence that he advanced the money to pay William Camp, bell L 8 1; he settled an account of Walter Williams's for LlB 4s, and other accounts. He gave the plaintiff this promissory note, but he alleged that it was only as a collateral security for Lochhead, who would soon be in a position to take it up himself. The Bench did not take this view of the case. The defendant had evidently received any benefit coming from the estate, of Lochhead, and he was liable fox the amount of the pr<)m.is.sory note. Verdict for plaintiff, with costs. Mr Staite"for defendant, A number of undefended cases were disposed of, and the Court adjourned to 10th May. _________