RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 139, 26 April 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fiupay, April 25.

(Before A. O. Strode, Esq., K.M.)

Drunki:nnes3. —The undermentioned parties were fined 20s. for this ofience :— Archibald Blew, Robert Welsh, Georne Oliver, John Smith,and John Jeffries, alias Temperley. Tho prisoner Blev.', having been previously convicted on the 28th November, and 14th April, was further sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, with hard labor. Assault. — John Jeffries, alias Uemperlcy was charped by constable .John McMahon with having assaulted him in the execution of his duty. The prosecutor- stated that about two o'clock in the morning, he was on duty in Rnttray street, when he heard a noise in the Arcade, and, upon proceeding there, found the prisoner in a state of intoxication. When attempted to be taken in charge he committed the unprovoked assault complained of. 'J he Bench fined him in the penalty of £3 and costs, or, in default, committed the prisoner ior a term of fourteen days. . - .. Profanity.—George biuith, convicted of übing 'profane language in a public place, was fined 10s. '"'larcenies.—George Coil, was charged by John Montgomery, ostler at tho "Provincial 'hotel, with having, on the 25th April, (this morning) stolen one horse-roller, valued at 20s. the property of Shadrach Jones.the proprietor of that establishment. The evidence'of William Taggart was to the effect that at half past six o'cock, lie went into the stable of the Provincial Hotel, and saw the prisoner in one of the stalls. Asked him what he was doing there, when the prisoner replied that he was tying up hjsbun(Ue. Witness suspecting the man,approached the bundle, and examined it, when he found the missing roller inside. The prisoner immediately went out, leaving the bundle behind. Witness instantly followed to give infoimation to the police, and while doing so, the prisoner came by and was arrested. Upon this charge he was committed to imprisonment, with hard labor, for the period of two months. The same prisoner was furtner charged by Detective Hittcheu, with having stolen a saddle, valued at £3 10s., the proerty of one Field or Thiel,a resident in Dunedin. The first witness sworn was James Gilligan, who fctated he was a soda water manufacturer in Alaclag-. can street. On the night of the 20th inst., a saddle •was stolen from his stable; one of his young men told him in the morning, that the saddle was gone ; witness had seen it on Sunday evening about o o clock1 Frederick William Thiel sworn ; statedtliat he was clerk to Dalgety, Rattray b»d Co., and.identified tji e

saddle produced an being his property. Ho had not seen it for eight or nine days; witness loft it in care "of Mr. Gillig.m lijf Saturday three weeks. f Another witness stated the prisoner, hud sold him the saddle, representing th.it he was .ihuut to clear out from Otago, and "embark foi- Victoria. The prisoner was fully commii/i.e.l to Ut'.u his trial at tha Criminal Sessions. •• Nuisakctx — .Tames Mimon a;ai:i : t JUorsfc and llowoll, butuiiow. In this ci <o tlie defendants wero informed a^iio':^ forluvin r creeled a cevtiin building f.ir the slaughtering uf aat.Ls, fiom uhiuhthc oiE;l and refuse of tlie blasts' carcases was so offensive a-< to infect ihe air with obnoxious exhalation:!. JUr. G'iilieo appeared for the defendant, and took objection to tisc wording of the iufuruialiou, arguing liiat a nuisance to be established, must hi proved to be oHonsive ti> a large number of iudiriduaU: whereas this \v;w not mentioned in the body ot the information ; and secondly, Ihesuminons served was materially different from tlie face of the information. He (Air. Gillies) had no doubt tiiiit this case had been brought by the police rather to ascertain what should be done in these matteis generally, than with any design of punishing the defendants individually. The defendants urected a slaughterhouse in :i thinly-peopled locality, and as to the removing of the nur-anco, in England it was specially provided that no such accumulation or deposit as shall be necessary for tlie carrying on of such a business, should be proved to bo a nuisance, if effectual me:.ns have bei'ii taken to protect tlie public from the effluvia.' The defendants, in the prcs-nt instance, hail been constantly in the habit of having the oilal removed, and they were quite disposed to adopt whatever means the police might suggest for keeping their slaughter yard in as inoll'ensive a condition as practicable. It was not an unl.iwful trade, as the Court was awaie of; for slaughterhouses must of necessity exist, and such)a biidinesa be conducted somewhere adjacent to the town. Mr. Inspector Weldon informed the Bench that several complaints had been made by various parties in the neighborhood of the slaughter-house in ques- i tion, and it was in consequence of these complaints that he hail taken measures in this case. He had no objection to suspend the information- for v few days, so as to allow time to the defendants to deal1 ' up their jard. Air. Gillies suggested to tho Inspector-OfHcer to . withdraw this information, as -his clients would take . immediate steps for abating the nuisance. The information was withdrawn, by consent, on the distinct understanding that the defendants would i comply with 'the directions of the police, _boas to | render the nuisance as little offensive as possible. • Nimon v. UitowiiiriwT. —In this-case Mr James Nimon reported the nuisance to be not abated. The defendant, George Crowhurst, had promised to abate the nuisance by to-day : and he now pleaded that the men who had promised to remove it had disappointed him. The prosecutor said that the defendant kept a, large number of pigs, and that tio nuisance was excessive. The defendant replied to this statement of prosecutor's, that mos>t of the nuisance'was created by the water which descended down a gully, from above Malcolm Graham's premises. Prosecutor expressed an opinion that the'nui&anco.might be satisfactorily abated by Tuesday next, and the defendant said'he would go but to-night to ascertain if the par-' ties lie had already referred to, could come down at once :ho had been entirely blocked in by his landlord, John Flannery : and had subscribed £i towards the construction of a right-.of way to enable him ,to .remove the refuse: in fact, he had aheady done everything in his power, and really was at a loss what further steps to take. The Bench granted defendant time to' abate the •nuisance complaiued of giving him until next Friday. Nimon v. Gardiner/ —In this case the defendant was informed against by Mr. James Nimon for unlawfully placing merchandise in. a public street, contrary to the provisions of a certain ordinance. Mr. Trendergast appeared' for the defendant, who pleaded "not guilty." The case hinged on the placing by defendant of a wheelbarrow, containing fruit, for the purposes of sale, at the corner of Princes and Stafford -streets. . Mr Prondergast said his answer to the information was,that his client had a good defence in law, according to tlie Ordinance as he read it. In the course of cross-examination by the defendant's council, the prosecutor replied that he had not brought the matter under tlie notice of the Town Board ; and' he could not say whether that body'had resigned, or not; or whether they had actually flung up in a rage, the I other day. Tlie Court expressed an opinion- that a carriage and four could ue'drivon through the Ordinance Act under which this information was laid, and it therefore felL through. - - - Buskin v. Fonßr.sT. —The complainant William liiiskin, a carpenter, charged one James Forrest with .using profane language on the 18th April iusl. .Upon being sworn, and called to prove his case, the plaintiff stated, thut on the day in question, the defendant went to him-and naked him for some timber for some mantel-pieces which prosecutor couldnot find whereupon tho defendant was alfeged to have uttered foul language, which it is unnecessary to notice here. Tho result of the hearing terminated in the information, being quashed. ' - , - Low v: Adams.—ln this c'.'se,William Low, watsrman, was complainant; and W. Adams, master of the steamer "Lady Barkly," defendant. The charge was that of assault, alleged to have been committed at the wharf, on the 23rd April.. The particulars are as'follows :—On the day mentioned upon tho face of the information complainaut was on-the wharf endeavouring- to procure passengers for the " Pride of the Yarra," and the defendant was trying to obtain some for his own boat, the "Lady Barkly." They came into contract, and a quarrel took place between them, originating in-the furor of competition. Defendant threatened ■to fling complainant into tlie water, upon which menace the complainant put his arms akimbo and exclaimed " No w you j ust try and do that, will you % " The defendant in&tantly rejoined: £l Oh ! I see you are one of the Old Identity coves, eh 1" (laughter in Court). A witness hamed Giecr, proved having seen the defendant; seize hold of the prosecutor by both shoulders, and throw him down upon the jetty with great violence, There was sonic altercation between the two, but witness was too far distant to hear what'about. Complainant informed the Bench that he had no animosity again&t defendant, aud defendant denied having pushed eoinplainnut down: he tripped himself up by stumbling against'a i nail. Ilis Worship considered that there had been no , provocation to wairant the assavdt, and inflicted a penalty of 30s. and costs amounting to 7p. 6d. , Kaui: v. Johnston akd Young.—ln this information, instituted by one Michael Kane, the defendants wore John Johnstone and Alexander Young ; but the latter-named party was represented in Court by 'a person who gave his name as Alexander Erskiue The action involved a demand for payment of £11 55., due as wages, on work and labor-; and *for money lent. Judgment was pronounced in favor of the plaintiff, in the sum of £8 10s., together with costs amounting to 9s. Barrett v. Hood.—Henry Barrett, plaintiff, and James l.amage Hood, defendant. The particulars were —claim for the recovery of £20, • for sinking a well. Mr. Kenyon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prendergast for tne defendant. The defence to the action was, that the contract was not properly kept by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff, instead of looking after the sinking of this well, as it was alleged ho ought to have done personally, had employed ignorant persons ; and, more than that, had left off the woik for ten days. Mr. Kenyon said that a material witness, of the name of Kilgpur, and who ought to'have been present on the side of his client, was not in Court, but notwithstanding his absence the learned gentleman believe! that he should be able to establish his case. • • Tho plaintiff, being sworn, stated that, in the month of February last, he made arrangements with the defendant for the construction of; a well at the following rates: —ss. per foot for the first 10 feet; 7s. Gd. for the next 10 feet; 10s. for the third 10 feet; 12s. 6d. fer the fourth 10 foet; and 15s. for the next 10 feet. After going down 46 feet; thojwell was deserted, to ascertain what quantity of waler would collect in the hole then sunk; but, in about a week's time, the men re-commenced work. When the labor was resumed, the plaintiff quitted them for the purpose of getting a pick sharpened, and upon his return missed the men, and, after instituting inquiries, was informed that they had been instructed to go away. Plaintiff then removed the materials. Tlie Bench gave judgment.for the plaintiff in the sum of £18, together with costs. ■Gowams-.v. Ikuland. —This was a' claim for assessment of a cottage once tenanted by the defendant, who vacated it on the 28th October, 1801. The assessment fell due in December last, to that the defendant became liable for a nine month's portion of the annual rate. Judgment had already been given against the defendant for a brewery, part of the premises. On the last occasion a person named Ueid ,was called, and stated distinctly that the defendant in this case was liable. Judgment, by default, in favor of plaintiff, in the sum of £1 5a., together with costs. Macleod and Gibson v. Macheil and Buckley. —The defendant did not put in an appearance. It was reported to the Court that Macneil, one of the defendants, was now in gaol under a civil process. Case adjourned sine die,. Gregory v. Bourne. —Mr. Prendergast for the plaintiff, Henry Gregory ; and Mr. Kenyon for the defendant, Thomas Bourne. Case adjourned until to-morrow (this day) for the evidence of one Morgan. Casper v. Dawson. —Mr. Ward' on tho side of the defence, produced a medical certificate to the effect that Mrs. Da\vson was at the present time in illhealth, confined to her bed, .and unable to appear before the Court. Ca&e adjourned to this day week. Dobson v. Greenwood. —Mr.-Ward for the plaintifl. Action to recover £7 10s. 7d. Adjourned to Monday next. Bortiiwick v. Baird. —Settled. ■ Buskin v. Forrest. —In this case, William Bus- ! kin, plaintiff, summoned William Forrest, defendant/ for payment of the sum of £3 3s. od., clamed on one j glass door and one' pair of casements. Judgment for' plaintiff in the sum of £1 Bs. (id. • : j There were a few other cases, seven in number, instituted for the recovery of small sums, and settlement of disputed claims, But the details were utterly devoid of general interest. ""