RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 314, 22 December 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 19th Dkcembbr. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., 11.M.) Alleged Theft.—Benjamin Harley accused with stealing a coat, was discharged. Nttisances. -Inspector Nimon reported that a number of nuisances were abated. Lewis Colenian was fined 40s, and L, D. Jones 30s, for having failed to remove nuisances on their premises. CIVIL CASES. Cornelius Barry i}. John Duff—Plaintiff in this action claimed L',lo, as damages for false imprison - ment, he having on the sth instant been arrested for robbeiy at the instance of defendant, and kept in custody till next day, when the sitting Magistrate discharged the case. The defence was justifiable rea ons for the arrest. From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff and defendant'were distantly related, and lived together in the same house, plaintiff occa*> sionally gividg assistance to defendant in his business. In consequence of some wor.is between them, plaintiff left the hause, taking with him his chest, in which, was about L2O, belonging to defendant, placed there for safe keeping. Defendant immediately lodged information, and caused plaintiff to be arrested, but at the Station House the charge was wished to be withdrawn if the money was given up. Plaintiff insisted on the charge being gone on with, or he would keep the money, and the case being brought before the Magistrate next morning he was discharged. Mr Ward conductedthe case for plaintiff, and Mr Graham for defendant. After hearing evidencshis Worship said it was necessary to look with considerable care and some suspicion, on a case of this nature, otherwise people would be deterred from bringing any one to justice. Yet it was a serious damage to^ character if they did so without grounds, and in thx3 instance the defendant had not sufficient reason for causing the arrest. The whole facts went to show that his remedy was a civil one. Under all the circumstances judgment was given for L 3 3s. and coMs. Petiel v Crtjte.~ This was an action to recover LlB 10§. on a, bank cheque plaintiff received from defendant, bat which on being presented for payment, was returned wilh the note "not sufficient funds.1 * The cheque was drawn by a Mr Jones in favor of defendant, who gave it as part payment of aa aQconnt, to plaintiff. He in tho same way paid it to a third paity, who presented it at the bank when it was dishonored. It then came back to plaintiff, who tried the bank again with the same result. For defendant it was argued that the cheque was quite good though the draw, r had not the amount iv bank at the tupe. JFor plaintiff it was said "pay the money, and take back the cheque if it is good," a view with which his Worship concurred, by giving judgment for the amount and cos>s. Wilson v Davis.—Plaintift sought to recover Lll 193. Bd tjl being the balance of an account due by defendant. The defence was that the amount had be^n j | paid; which, was supported by some written ddomufint and as plaintiff had nothing but a vague impression to the contrary, judgment was given tor defendant.