RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 161, 22 May 1862, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; ! Tuesday, May 21, 18G2. Before A. C. Strode, Esq., Resident Magistrate. Drukkeness. —Win. Stratford was fined 40s. auil costs for this offence, and Wm. was fined 10s. and costs and in default committed to prison for 48 hours. , , 'A Real Loafeb.—Gfeo. Broivn, a strong looking al)le bodied man, was charged with stealing two tarts, the property of Mr. Huddy, the proprietor of ashoji in the Provincial Yard. It was proved upon the testimony of the son of the complainant, that J?rown had been in the habit of calling at the shop, and by a coincidence, tarts and pies mysteriously disappeared at such times. On the last occasion, however, he was detected in the act, by the youthful'son of the sliopkeeper,aud ultimately consigned to the tender mercies of the police. The prisoner, by way of excuse, said that he had done it "in a lark," but his 'Worship took a diiferont yie\y of the niatter, and coujniitted him to prison for 3 Svo'eks with html labor. '' ' ' ;NcrsAscE.—On the information of Insp'octor Nimmon, Mr. 8,, 0.. Luscombe was fined 103, and cost: for a. nuisance in "respect to an out-house in Great King-street. : iSoLOMAN v.-Street.—The plaintiff sued for the value of a case of cheese supplied by him to the defendant. Defendant pleaded he had never ordered the goods. The defendant, however, proved'the'ordering arid delivering of the goods, and his Honor accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs. -. v Bennett.—Judgment. for the plaintiff with costs. .';' -

IS.utor v GrARVAN.—This was a demand fir £27.19s Oil. for loss occasioned by non-delivery of a quantity of tom-pl;ites bought by the plaintiffin Oct. last. The defendant, (a member of the firm of Scott arid Co.), pleaded ho knew nothing of the transaction, having been in Melbourne at Hie time. Satisfactory evidence, however, was adduced by the plaintiff in respect to Jus claim, and his Honor gavp judgment for ;plaintiff for £14 10a. OJ. and costs, expressing an opinion that this amount would fnirly meet the cose. [Telfeb v Taylor.—Judgment for plaintiff for £15 18s. Cd. and costs; . : • .- Hojian v Rosenberg.—Judgment for- plaintiff, £1 Us. -.Oil. and coste. .jr.. ■:■ ,' '