RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Otago Daily Times, Issue 129, 15 April 1862, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Monday, April 14. (Before A. 0: Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. —Francis Donnelly, Peter Hood, George AVoods, and Donald Weir, were' reprimanded and discharged. Alexander M'Donald, George Cleary,'Win. Cronan, Henry Massey, and Andrew Patton, were each fined 205., and in default, 4b liours' imprisonment. Indecency.—Donald Weir, for an offence against decency, was fined 10s. and costs.

Obtaining money under false pretences. I John Baxter pleaded not guilty to the charge ot obtaining goods from — M'Leod- under false lH'eteuces. ' Mr. South appeared for tbe prosecution Alter the : ease had proceeded some time, his Worship daid that , the " false pretences" were not, he thought, by any means clearly made out. Mr. South said that he inclined to the same opiiMr Prendergast as amicus curiee, ■ submitted that this case partook rather ofthe nature of larceny. _- Mr. South reminded the Bench that a fresh information could be laid. V This his Worship thought would be the best plan, and in: the mean-timethe prisoner was remanded. •

KmiusZ/.i.e.ment. —George Hawkins charged with embezzling the funds of tlio pa.^t ofiice at Waitahuna, was brought up on remand from the 7ill April, and uhe case against liim resumed. Sydney Jolmstono Dick, Postmaster at Tuapeka, deposed that he knew the accused. Witness was appointed Postmaster on 1 Ith November lust, with permission to. engage an assistant, and engaged the accused, G-oorgo Hawkins. as clerk on the 2dfch. On the 2ist December, by the direction of the Chief Postmaster, lie sent, tiie prisoner to- Waitahuna, to take charge of the post ofiice there.

At this stage of the proceedings, the evidence of Mr. Darr was read over by the request of Mr. fatten, who appeared tor the prisoner. Mr. Patten then submitted that there was no case to go to a jury. It had not been shown that the prisoner had ever been appointed a Government officer or gazetted as such. James Macaulay, at present postmaster at Waitahuna, deposed that on the2tith November, he received a letter from Mr. Barr, chief postmaster, requesting liim to proceed at once to Waitahuna post-otlice, anil to take possession ■of the ofiice, and of all moneys, stamps, &c. On the 28fch he proceeded to Waitnliuna. accompanied by tlie postmaster of Tuapeka, ami'tunic possession, presenting Mr. Hawkins with the letti r, and informing him that be was suspended from duly. I'ound in the ollice, cash M 5s Bd, postage stamps, value £0 2s od, amount on unpaid letters, £1 Gs 4d. After the cash was counted, tlio prisoner left the office, aud witness continued in possession. Detective Hitchins deposed tbat when he arrested the prisoner at Port Chalmers, he found on his person a -warrant of appointmentas Postmaster at AVaitahuna. The warrant bore the signature of the PostmasterGeneral, besides several other signatures. The prisoner reserved his defence, and was committed to take his trial.

Jas. NmoN v. Thomas Harris. — This was a complaint for throwing rubbish in I'rinces-strcet. The defendant said that he saw other loads of rubbish thrown in the same place. Fined Cm. and costs. Fllen Young v. Sarah de Woolf alias Sauah Cooper.—No appearance of either party. .'■ —Bell v. Robt. Burns.—Mr. Cook for plaintiff; Mr. for defendant.

This was an action to obtain possession of a house. Mr. , on the part of defendant, undertook to restore possession. Mr. Cook wished a guarantee of expenses, and the case was adjourned until next clay to allow of a private arrangement being come to. Faulkner and Thompson v.JMuiuuy.—For £20, carriage of goods from Dunedin to Roxborough. The plaintiif, Thompson, stated that he bad delivered the goods by the order of Mr. Murray to Air. Miller, at Roxborough, but that when he afterwards went to Mr. Murray for payment, Mr. Murray said he had'paid enough for Mr. Miller, and that plaintiff must look to Mr. Miller for payment.

Faulkner confirmed the evidence of the first witness. .■'.-.'-..

Both these witnesses were subjected to a wearisome cross-examination as to what the goods were that they delivered: to Miller; why Miller objected to pay Murray for them; how long they bad been carting on the road ; who furnished them with the weights of the goods; what sort of a store Miller kept; who kept the accouuts of their business; who acted as messenger between them and Murray. It was at length elicited that, on starting from Dunediu the plaintiffs had supposed that Miller was to pay the carriage, but that iVliller had refused to do so,, as the goods were not what he had ordered, and part of them were quite unfit for use. They had then brought tlieir claim against Miller, and had reduced it from £20 to £20 for the purpose of bringing it in this Court. Mr. Murray, the defendant, said that he had sold some goods to Walter Miller and had sent part by boat and part by cart. The plaintiffs came to him and asked for Walter Miller's goods. His invariable custom was not to pay-cartage upon goods forwarded to the country, the parties to whom goods were sent always paid the carriage. A portion of theg goods taken by the plaintiffs had only been left at his store' for Walter Miller until sent for.

J-?-' — Dods confirmed, in most points, the evidence of Mr. Murray. His Worship was satisfied that there-was no hiring, and dismissed the case, with 18s. costs. LE^yls Barnett v. John Daniels. — For £6 9s. Mr. Cook for plaintiff. Mr. Cook added to the claim £1 45., making the total claim £7 13s. Lewis Barnett entered into a statement of accounts between himself and the defendant. He was crossexamined at great length by the defendant, both parties displaying a degree of. warmth and eagerness which made it rather'difficult to follow the exact course of the evidence. '

Mr.. Daniels then made a counter statement, and after a very lengthy investigation His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff in the fidl amount, with costs.

Solomons v. Pearson.—Claim for £10, for damage done to plaintiff's shop. Mr. Prendergast for plaintiff. Mr. South for defendant. £3 had beeu. paid into Court. The case was a very simple cue. The defendant's cart had been backed violently against the window of the plaintiffs shop, aud the window had been smashed. Plaintiff carried on tlio_ business of a -jeweller and gold assayer. Plaintiff produced the bills of the glazier and carpenter, each of whom also appeared, and deposed that the amount charged was a reasonable and moderate demand for the work done. Judgment for plaintiff, for £3, with costs.

Jones and Williamson v. Jas. Riddell. — No appearance of defendant. • This was an action to recover £20 on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiffs, and costs.

'•■ 11. Murreix v. J. H. Jenkinson.—Plaintiff stated that he had, on arriving in Dunedin, on loth , February, stored his clothes cdiest. with Mr. Jeukin- ' son. He went to the diggings, and on his return on : 20th March he took his passage by the Plicenix for ' Auckland, but the box was not forthcoming, and . lie had therefore been detained since. He charged £7 for the box and contents, and 21 days detention lat 10s per clay, and £3 for loss of passage. He had, ,at Mr. Jenkiinoii's request, Gone to Tokonuuiro to ' look for the box, and had at length traced it out, but ' could not bring- it away. The box had been broken ' open. The person in whose possession the box lay refused to give it up without authority from Mr. Jenkinson, and plain till" said ho would take proceedings to recover tiie box. Mr. Jenkinson, for the defence, stated that the box had been left with him, and that when he let it go away there was no ticket or address upon it. Another person's box had been left in the same way, and he had sent it up to him at Tokomariro by mistake. He urged that although he was willing- to pay wages, the charges were excessive. Judgment for £15 Bs., with the understanding that it the box be returned witliin a week, the amount bo reduced to £8 Bs. Adah v. Davis.—No appearance. Case dismissed. Young v. Wood.—-No appearance. Case dis-" missed; Lawrence v. Smith. —Plaintiff sued for £5 Bs,. being amount of rent of acottage payable in advance. Defendant pleaded not liab.e. "Verdict for defendant. Thomson v. Lorimer.—Claim for £2 ss. Verdict for plaintiff for full amount and costs.