ARROW POLICE COURT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 30, 12 August 1863, Page 6

ARROW POLICE COURT.

(Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) August 8, 1863.

Mary Anderson was charged with being drunk and disorderly on night of the 6th inst. Sergeant Lynch deposed to the fact of the prisoner having been very much excited and in liquor; he was obliged to lock her up. The prisoner denied the imputation on her sobriety, and stated that she was suffering from partial paralysis, and on the evening in question, about 11 p.m., she was waiting in the street to see Dr. Douglas, when she observed the police taking Sarah Ritchie on a stretcher to the station. She thought it was too bad to lock her up, and leave her little girl by herself in the mountains. She told Lynch she would come down and bail the old woman out, and Lynch said he would let her out if she would come down. When she got to the station, he shoved her in along with the old woman.

His Worship.—This is not your first appearance here, Mrs. Anderson; I shall fine you 20s.

Sarah Ritchie was charged with being I drunk and disorderly on the night of the 6th instant.

| Sergeant Lynch stated that the prisoner, | who did not appear, was a perfect disgrace to | the township. She was on this occasion I beastly drunk about the streets, and shouting out the most hideous blasphemies. It was ! necessary to tie her on a stretcher to bring her i to the Camp, l Fined 40s.

CIVIL CASES. Edward Terice v. George Barker.—The i plaintiff claimed £lO, being the amount of an 1.0. U. of defendant's held by him. | His Worship gave a verdict for plaintiff, with costs and expenses. *

Goldstone Brown v. Thomas Paul.—The plaintiff sued the defendant, a man of color, for £l 10s. for a pair of " bteeks."

I Defendant not appearing, judgment was j given for plaintiff, with costs. Charles Low v. A. Stewart.—The plaintiff claimed £2 Bs. for a pair of boots.

It appeared that both parties in the suit had been formerly in partnership as shoe- , makers; this was lately dissolved, and the 1 stock-in-trade divided equally ; but unfortu- ; nately one pair of boots were left over, and I were taken possession of by the defendant. ! Under the circumstances, his Worship said I he could do nothing else but adjudge that the I pair of boots be divided, and accordingly gave j a verdict for £1 4s , with costs.

Marian Watson v. W. Fitzhenry.—This was an action for payment of wages. Plaintiff, an attractive-looking girl, had been barmaid at the Shamrock Hotel, up to the time of its destruction on the 26th ult, and now

claimed nine weeks' wages, at £2 a-week. She had not received a farthing from the time of her first engagement. She asserted that she did not understand that the engagement was for six months; also stating that her reason for leaving Mr. Fitzhenry was her intention of going home. She had nothing to say against him. Mr. Fitzhenry, sworn.—On the Ist June last he left instructions at Mrs. Alpenny's Registry Office, at Dunedin, to engage a barmaid for him for six months. He had afterwards seen the plaintiff in town, and informed her that this was the period of her engagement. He did not deny that plaintiff had been in his service; and when his hotel was washed away by the flood, he had provided her with board and lodging at the Golden Age Hotel. Previous to this, plaintiff had informed him that she intended to leave his service on the 6th of August. He refused to pay her, on the grounds that her engagement was for six months, and that she refused to complete it. His Worship stated that as the wages were fixed at a weekly sum, a week's notice was all that was legally required on either side. It appeared, from defendant's own admission, that he had received this notice. At the same time, as defendant had paid £6 2s. for plaintiff'B expenses from Dunedin, he should deduct that from ths amount claimed, and give a verdict for £ll 18s., with costs.

WARDEN'S COURT. . , (Before Richmond Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Several cases were settled, but the details are of no general interest. A number of objections were handed in against the protection applied for by the Enterprise Company, on the grounds that if it were granted, all the neighboring claims would be thrown out of work. Mr. Young, on behalf of the company, stated that their reason for desiring protection was the apprehension they entertained of another flood.

Mr. Manuel, for the objectors, said that they were anxious and willing to begin work again, and to run the chance of a flood; and he thought it hard so many claims should be stopped working on account ef the fears of the Enterprise Company.

1 His Worship stated he was as anxious as any of them to see work going on, and to give them a chance he would withhold the protection for fourteen days, and see what the state I of things would be then.