RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 800, 24 April 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, April 24. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS. Edward Murphy was charged, on the information of Police-Sergeant Emmerson, with this offence, and the prisoner pleaded guilty. His Worship, in sentencing the prisoner, said that on the last occasion he was before the Court, the eloquent and strong appeal of[ the learned counsel in his defence had prevailed with the Bench, and he (the prisoner) had been given another opportunity to enable him to reform. The promises made by the prisoner were perfectly useless; he had been shown every consideration, and yet, when under the influence of liquor, he was a perfect nuisance to the neighbourhood. It had now become a species of insanity over which the prisoner had no control, and he (the Magistrate) trusted that during the time of his imprisonment the prisoner would see the error of his ways, and, on his liberation, become a reformed man and a useful member of society. He then sentenced the prisoner to three mouths’ hard labor in her Majesty’s gaol at Hokitika. Catherine Mulligan was charged with a similar offence, and was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor, in the Hokitika gaol, the Magistrate remarking that if she could not refrain from drink for the sake of her family, it was simply wasting the time of the Court in constantly remonstrating with her on her conduct. CIVIL CASES. Johnson v. Tabart.—An adjourned case, to allow plaintiff to formally apply for the title deeds of two sections he had bought of Mr Haworth, through the agency of his auctioneer, Mr Tabart. The plaintiff stated he had applied, and could get no satisfactory answer, only that Mr Haworth had not received one penny from the auctioneer. Mr Perkins, who appeared for the defendant, urged that the auctioneer could not be proceeded against, and that the Court could not give judgment for the interest on the money, even if it did for the principal. The Magistrate said he had taken the trouble to inquire into the matter, and he should give judgment for the plaintiff with costs of Court, as he considered it was a most gross case, and one in which the plaintiff was done both out of his land and money. Crowley v. Brick. Claim, £6 7s lid. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff) with costs of Court.

Morgan v. Dixon—Claim, £ll. Mr Perkins for plaintiff. As there were a number of similar cases against the defendant, this one was taken first as the defence in all were similar. The defendant, who was a contractor for some cottages for the Government on the Christchurch road, had employed the plaintiff and others to work at the buildings, at 15s per diem: their wages to be paid fortnightly. This the defendant failed to do, alleging that he had not received the money from Hokitika, but admitted on his cross examination that he had given an order on the money due, and the men’s wages he would have to defray some other way. A set off of £4 was claimed by

defendant, for board supplied, £3 of which was allowed, and judgment was given for plaintiff for £B, with costsS of Court, and professional coats £1 18s. In the following cases, which were of the same character, judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costs of Court and professional costs in each case of .£1 Is Superine v. Dixon, £7 10s 2d ; Matchett v. Dixon, £7 15s 8d; Bell v. Dixon, £7 7s 2dj and Morris v. Dixon, £7 4s9d. * Trustees of Rholoff v. Gill.—This case was adjourned for a week, to enable plaintiff to produce his authority to appear in the case. [Left sitting.] For remainder of news see last page.