RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1275, 30 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

sw^^'TPriday, August 23. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) Rehberg v O'Malley— An action for damagesrfor«aßsaulti-^he>f>laiirts*©i' r claira was made up as, follo^-^Loss oL time, &c, iniCoriseque'n& -of the^ actions of the defendant, LSO ; ambulance_ carriage and atfeha^nc^fiU^fieingwttTe^%ottrthe battlefield, L 2; medical and surgical expenses, 15 ' '{fs ; special damages, L4O; total, L 97 ss; The plaintiff is a carpenter and builder, an|Tthe defendant is a settler and hotelkeepefc ■.; afe:^ Ikamatua. The plaintiff came to^the-house of the defendant, while, on his way, frojm (; Ree|ton to Ahaura. He receiveq !payinent|<^ an account' the defendant 1 owetl. him, fdV'^ork donia some, time previously, ,,auC. Rafter staying in the house all night hie left in the morning without paying his bill. The defendant • followed him and ;tpot summary proceedings to obtain; a settlement of his account. It was,^hile,, this process ot immediate execution was being.^med out that the alleged assault Was'com- ; mitted;: The main facts were; not ; denied, but the great . provocation ■ the deferidant received was urged in mitigatioa of - p dam- ' ages, and Dr Phillips, who was called by the plaintiff, said, that, the illness of the complainant was not entirely caused by th? usage he received: ;,at^, r fhe » hands pf the defendant.; Thej.pbiintiff Vras suffering [from chrpnic disea-se of the lungs, and:. although the; assault might retard his progress,. towards recovery^ it was not* the immediate causeofrhis illness. His Worship, while- admitting the great provocation the defendant receivtid; r iiid he had no right to .take thejlaw into his own hands, and g^ve a verdict for L 5, with costs . and expenses. Mr Staite for the defendant. . ;.; ■;!>!' A i-;*»* v^p Emily Thompson v. Martin Maloney. ;— Claim of Lll,,fo;r wrongful t detentig» r>. and the Value of certain property of * th«V^ plaintiff's detained by the 'defendant. The plaintiff occupied & houses belonging to the def en'dau t at^apoleVri Hill, and as he alleged, she .would neither give jup possession nor pay rent. : Seeing, that he could not move the tenant, .he 1 deter mined to remove the house, and accordingly he commenced^ to pull it down, and ! by doing so^dam|^d^the goods of the : plaintiff, whicliSti^^rincipally articles " of wearing apparel. A bystander, witnessed" the eviction, gave evidetjce, and his testimony went to- .show thaf the heartless conduct ot the defendant was ' the cause of grievous annoyance to tho plaintiff. This witness further said 'that he* remonstrated' with the defendant at .the time, and that he (the witness), sogqep th'ari se§ the poop woman turned out of house amd. home at that hour of the night, would' have given the defendant a cheque for the amount of his claim, but unfortunately lie did not happen to have his cheque-book with him. The ■ Alagistratec'onaidered the defendant, by " his conduct, exceeded the necessities of • the caaej . and-gave judgment for the plaintiff] for L 7, to be' reduced to L2,on • •restbr^tioni]6f theprtiperty of the plaintiff, with costsj exiiensesi ; arid professional costsl Mi* Staite for' th;e plaintiff. •;•••:;. . ; : Fox and O'Neill v; Adb)ph /Guenth--A judgment' summoris for Ll2 38^ -The defendant was examined as, to bis ability , to pay, andheexplainedtb^liP. h»4bpen; EPPSpectwg J«rlswL njonths. = with<>ttt_any ; / ■Hroir,-<yod lie wa^mow iwofk»ng]ppt an old account for wages. Orclerfor payment of hi pey week with gostsjQi- in. de{aTrtt|ffin§ v month's imprisonment, i ■ 7 ,,. J, Judgments were given for the plaintiflfs with costs in Erskine y. Mnrphy, for L 5 12s ; Ddoleii v; Pearse;'L24 ! l'^7Mtoghlinv; Berens,' L2O • Fox; toil -O^Neiil >. Berens, Ll4 375 ; and 'in^Mrpny V. Erskine, d- verdict was for the defendant with" costs. ■*■'•' w ~The»Oourtwasadjounied'topAttgi«t s 3O.