RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Otago Daily Times, Issue 189, 24 June 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

{ Monday, 23 bd June, 1862. (Before Alfred Chetham Strode, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. — The undermentioned parties were dealt with as indicated. Mary Ann Fisher, charged by constable Coneys with having been drunk on Saturday last, was liberated without fine, on promising not to transgress agaiu. John . Little was charged by constable Maloney with havingbeen drunk on the 21st, and was discharged in consequence of having been locked up since Saturday, evening. . John Bird, charged by constable.Forster and James Tamreid, charged also by constable Forster, both tlie accused being out on bail) were respectively I fined 20s. for this offenre. EJECTMENT CASE. (Before His Honor, the Superintendent, Mr. Logic, Collector of Customs, and the Resident Magistrate.) Jones v. Stevenson.—ln this case James David Jones informed against Daniel Stevenson, for having on the 19th June.yiinJawfuHy occupied, without right, title, or license, a portion pf land being sec-. tion.37, -.block 7, in the city of Dnnedin,. contrary to the provisions ofthe Summary Ejectment Ordinance, IS4S)..

Mr. Prendergast appeared for tbe plaintiff, and Mr. Cook for the defendant. James David Jones sworn, stated that he resided in High-street; that defendant became a tenant of his, and occupied portion of section 88 and 39, contiguous to the Taraora Houve. Plaintiff occupied the allotment by virtue of a lease from one Flanagan, on condition of payment of rental in advance. On one occasion, plaiutiff said to defendant "You are perfectly aware of the conditions under which I hold this land. Now, suppose I was not in a position to meet the rent—it has happened, and may happen to better men than me. Suppose I was not prepared, or had not that modicum of rent to spare, I might be ousted out of my property J" The defendant had not paid any money in advance, and had been in possession for about seven months. Plaintiff believed the allotment occupied by defendant to be section 38 and part of section 39. Sir. Cook took objection to the case proceeding on the grounds that the information was filled in with section 37, whereas now^ in his evidence, the plaintiff deposed to sections;3B and 39.' The Court held the objection tb be fatal, and dis : missed the ease. ■ '

Gtii.MouH v. Rapferty.—This was a similiar nrosecution. Alexander Gilmour being the ' plaintiff, and John Raffeity the defendant, who was informed against for having, on the 20th June, "unlawfully; occupied, without right, title, or license,- portions of sections No. 16 and 17,-block 7, within the Town District, contairy to the provisions of. the Summary Ejectment Ordinance, section lof 1849. "Mr. Cook appeared for the defence. Mr. Prendergast on the side of the plaintiff, stated that a Mr. J. S. Douglas, the original proprietor of the land, in, question, was an essential witness in the case, and was hot present. The Bench directed-that'Mr.- Douglas should be called three times, wliich was done, but that party did not respond. The case was. then adjourned to this day week, the 30th current! ' - i ' (HisHobor the Superintendent, and the Collector of Customs, here retired from the Bench.) Mackenzie akd Co. v. Martin Lano.—No appearance of defendant. Personal seryice of summons lipon the defendant, last Thprsday, was duly proied in the usual way. The Court pionounced judgment in favor of plaintiff, in the sum of LlO 16s. 6d., together with costs, 9s. Francis Noel v. Singer.- No appearance of either party. The particulars of demand were stated to be on the supply of suppers, cigars, and other items, from 6th May to 17th idem, amounting in all to L 2 Bs. Case dismissed. Ron. Wilson' v. Be*j. Smith.—lho appearance of either party. The particular pf demand -were stated tofelyypon a charge for cartage, from the 4th'February to 24tli May, amounting to Lg 7s. Cd. Case dismissed.

Tnos. Jackson v.-RtoaARO Jenkins.—Action for the recovery of seventeen weeks'wages; at Ll 10s. per week, from Ist February: to 30th May, from which there were sundry deductions for cash advanced in February and May, together with a remission of Ll 10s., iv consequence of seven days' absence, making a total of L2O 10s., reduced to 1/20, to bring the sum within.the jurisdiction. Plaintiff had been waiter at the AYellington Hotel, in Moiay Place, working sixteen or eighteen hours a-day. He stated on oath that he drew all the custom to the house; and that defendant had only another servant on" his premises—''a sailor for a cook, who did nothing during the whole of the day but smoke his pipeJ*' Mr. Prendergast appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Howorth for tho defendant, wlio denied that he had ever engaged tbe plaintiff at all; on the contrary plaintiff owed bim money for board and lodging at the rate of 28s per week. Mr. Jenkins had let him have two.five shilling pieces, and bad always.got his sliirts washed for the plaintiff. Upon one occasion plaintiff began to make himself busy at the table, as though he wished to wait, when defendant told him to sit down aud'cat bis dinner, ns he had plenty of servants in the house to attend to the lodgers. Defendant had taken plaintiff.into his house purely out of charitable motives, having known him in better 'circumstances.'. Mi's. Jenkins was called to be examined on the side of her husband (the defendant) but having been within the precincts of the court during the bearingof preceding witnesses, her evidence was rejected on the ground that before the case was opened all witnesses-were ordered out of court. Mr. Howorth next called Stephen Baker, who, being sworn, stated that lie always considered the plaintiff to be a lodger and not a servant, because about five weeks ago he said to witness,' " By G —d, Steve, I'ni afraid to eat anything for I fear I shall never be able to pay them." James Bowles was another witness examined for the defendant. The Bench then gave judgment iv favor of the plaintiff in thd sum of £16 ss, together with costs. - ; Chas. M'Qoarhi' v. Alex. Huel. —Action to recover £17, balance due on a loan of cash advanced' some six months ago. There was no appearance of defendant. Personal service of summons upon the defendant, on the 20th June instant, was proved in the usual way, and the Court gave judgment in favor of plaintiff in the full amount claimed, together with ccsts Qi.

Sajue v. Alex. Huei. & Co.—Action to recover the sum of £8 Is. 7d., being balance due for Tliere was no appearance of defemlanc. Personal service of summons was duly proved. The .Bench gave judgment iv favor of plaintiff in the sum of £8 ls. 7(1., together with costs 7s. Alex. Maclean v. Archer (a lighterman)— The particulars of demand in this case relied upon the stacking of timber, £3 3s. Defendant did not consider the amount justly due, inasmuch as the timber had not been properly stacked. Judgment for plaintiffin the sum of £3 35., together with costs 3s. The sum of 7s. allowed to a carter as expanses for attending to give evidence.

Corbett v. Thompson and Matnarp.—Mr. Cook for the plaintiff.^ and Mr. South for the defendants,This was fin action to recover damages- for trespass ; and for money paid, and money lost, in consequence of such trespass, the sum of £20. Mr, Cook stated the case. Plaintiff entered into a contract with tho defendants to erect some buildings iv ..-Princes-street, known as " Corbett's buildings,'' the contract being dated on the 25th February, the buildings to bd compbted by the 17th April: the condition being that if the defendants failed to fulfil their contract thay were to bi held liable to a penalty of £2 per day. The 'defendants failed in the engagement, ami plaintiff engaged another contractor n mscl Inman to complete the upper rooms. About 4 o'clock in the afternoon ofthe 4th June, the defendants, Thompson and Maynard, repaired to the premises with some workmen; locked up the sitting rooms, the inner shop door; and barricaded the place. On the following day, they repeated their conduct, and took forcible possession of the place again. They were got rid of for a time, but they repeated tlieir behaviour in the course of the same afternoon, when tbe police were called in, and the defendants, with their men, were finally, ejected by the constabulary, and were threatened to be locked up. In consequence of this conduct, the plaintiff alleged that he had sustained certain damages. He had incurred a loss ot £2 ss. lid., whicli he had to pay as wages to Mr. Inmau's; laborers ; he had lost four days' rent at £4-18 a-year,! the premises being leased to the Government; besides suffering an interruption to his general business, which could not be proximately estimated. Mr. - South requested to be furnished with a bill of particulars. Mr. Cook upon that phase of the defence, waived that part of the information which went "for money paid and money lost," arid would confine the.prosecution to damages for trespass alone. Mr. Thomas King AVeldon, Inspector of Police, sworn, stated that he remembered the disturbance on the sth June, when the constabulary were summoned to suppress the row, and put out the defendants. On that occasion, the defendaut, Thompson, said ht> was contractor for the work, and should retain possession, adding that he required the architect's certificate before he surrendered up possession. Witness knowing that the premises belonged to plaintiffin the present action, caused the defendants to be ejected. - The-evidence ofthe plaintiff was then taken in proof of the statement. made by the mouth of his counsel. Mr. 0. Smith was described as superintendent architect of the work.

Mrs. Corbett, wife of the plaintiff, was examined, and re-examined at considerable length. In the course of her evidence, this witness deposed to the inter.mption to business occasioned by the disturbances of the 4th and 4th instants, The average receipts por day amounted to £17 or £20. Whereas on the sth June, they did not realise more than £2. A ease. or an instance, in point was cited, being that of a lady who entered the premises with a little boy, nnd inquired for some ladies' collars, but the noise was so great that it was impossible ior the customer and the witness to comprehend one another, and the consequence was that the lady bad to leave without effecting a purchase. Mr. Inman was called three times, but did not appear. Mr. South briefly addressed the Court on behalf of the defendants, and attributed the institution of the present proceedings to a feeling ...of malice in the mind of the plaintiff against the de: fendants. The learned gentleman characterised the case as being most paltry and insignificant. He called Mr. Thomson, who in the course of his evidence stated, that so far from contractors taking forcible possession of premises until a settlement had been-effected, ifc was a usual occurrence ; for instance, in the case of the Brighton Church in Victoria, where the contractors took possession of the edifice in. the absence of an. amicable arrangement. Witness did not obtain the architect's certificate until the 6ch June.

Thi3 case had not terminated at a quarter past three o'clock, when our reporter was obliged to leave the court, in order to attend the usual weekly meet-; ing of the Town Board. (We will report the decision I in to-morrow's issued