RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5713, 22 July 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, Jolt 21. (Before Mr, Mansford, R.M., and Messrs. * Cook and Seed.) DRUNKENNESS. John Brice and John Smith, charged with drunkenness, were discharged. John Purcell was fined 10s. and costs, or to be imprisoned fortyeight hours. Andrew Swanson, 10s., or fertyeight hours. Eliza Kenny was also fined 10s. and costs. She had been found in the streets that morning in almost a state of nudity, and nearly frozen. ASSAULT. Cornelius O’Connor was charged with committing a violent assault on his employer, Mr. W. J. Roberts, at Kawarra, on Saturday last. Mr. Roberts deposed that the accused had been in his employ. On the date named the prisoner had asked him to pay some money due, or he would murder him (Mr. Roberts). Witness made no answer to such an improper demand. Prisoner then struck him with a pick-handle on the shoulder, and threatened to murder him* Prisoner was remanded till Wednesday, through the absence of some witnesses. Bail was allowed, £2O. MISAPPROPRIATION. Walter Thompson was charged with malversation of moneys belonging to his employer, C. Collins. Prosecutor deposed he was a dairy farmer, living in Manners-street. Prisoner had been employed by him for ten weeks to deliver milk, and while in that capacity had appropriated several small sums of money received from customers to his use. He had discharged prisoner on 2nd July. On leaving prisoner had stated that several customers were in arrears, but he (witness) afterwards found that Thompson had been paid, and then kept the money. He then took proceedings.—Mrs. Ellen Johnston, living in Martin-square, Mrs. Catherine Mitchell, Abel Smith-street, and T. Eryer, grocer, Clyde-quay, deposed to making payment of several sums which had been misappropriated.—Detective Sullivan deposed that on arresting prisoner he had admitted his guilt.—Mr. Mansford said it was a pity such a trumpery case should have to go to the Supreme Court, involving much delay and expense. Prisoner reserved his defence, and was committed for trial.

FALSE PRETENCES. Walter Thompson, accused in the previous case, was charged with obtaining 7s. 6d. by false pretences, from the Rev. Mr. Redstone. Mr. Redstone deposed that on Friday, July 4, prisoner had brought him an account from Mr. Collins for lewt. of potatoes delivered a few days previously. Witness had paid him the money, but afterwards found he had left his employer’s service, and was not authorised to receive the money. Mr. Collins having given evidence, prisoner was committed on this charge also. , ASSAULT IN THE HOSPITAL. William Taylor, a Hospital patient, was charged with committing a violent and unprovoked assault on a warder on Thursday last. W. H. Wakeham, warder in the Hospital, deposed that on July 17 prisoner, who was a patient in the Hospital, had struck him a deliberate and unprovoked blow with his fist. Prisoner had also struck another patient who had attempted to defend him (witness). Prisoner stated that the warder had thrown his bedding about, and was, with another patient, about to give him a good thrashing. When he had complained to the doctor, the latter told him he would be sent to h——. Another patient, named Carson, deposed to the assault. Prisoner had struck him in the eye when attempting to shield the warder.—Mr. Mansford said there had been many complaints about prisoner’s conduct in the Hospital previously. He would be imprisoned seven days, and in the meantime efforts would be made for his being placed in some other institution than the Hospital. CIVIL OASES. Judgment Summons. — Riohardt v. Tafner. In this case the defendant was summoned for non-compliance with a judgment of the Court; but on his explaining that his circumstances would not allow of his discharging the liability, the Magistrate said the case must be adjourned from time to time to enable the debtor to make some arrangement. The case was adjourned for four months. J. Myers v. Robert Smith ; claim, £& 10s.— This was an extremely complicated case, where the possession and use of some plans and specifications for a building were in dispute. After a large amount of evidence, technical and otherwise, had been given, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £5 and costs. The Court rose at 4.15 p.m.