RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 317, 25 December 1862, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 23rd December. ■ (Before A. Chetham Strode, Esq., E M.) : Drunkenness.—The following all pleader! guilty to being drunk in the streets, and w< re f ach tined 20s, or 48 hours iisprlsohu cnfc in default of pa}mint: —William Miller .liitcuie, John St«wart, John M* Arthur, William Anderson, and Daniel M'Arte. Theft op a Watch.—Mary Moss was accused of stealing a silver patent le\er watch, the property of Edward Hill. Prosecutor said that on last Sunday afternoon he got the worse of liquor, and while in that state accompanied % pris"ner to v house in Hopestreet, where he remained all night. Next morning he missed his watch, and on asking prisoner, she denied ail knowledge of it. He then gave information to the police, and accompanied by a sergeant, went back to the house where ail the inmates denied having seen it. Prosecutor and the Serjeant went outside for a few minutes, and on returning again the watch was found on the beJ. Prisoner then admitted having taken it, but pleaded that she wis drunk at the time. She was full committed for trial at the Supreme Couit. very Like Perjury.—Alexander Jamiesonwas charged at tho instance of Matilda Nolan, with having unlawfully entere4-her tent in- Stafford-street. Prosecutrix stated that about three o'clock that morning prisoner broke the staple of the door, and forced himhimself into, her tent. She was in bed at the timn, and he abused her violently, attemptingl to strangle her. After a. struggle sh^ got away, and went for a constable, who took him into custody. In reply to such questions from the prisoner as, " Were we not drinking together in the evening T' or, " Did I not accompany you to the tent? and " Did I not give you £"2 in the evening?" She positively swore, ■' I never saw you between the eyes before " Inspector WeUon said that from c quiries he hid caused to be made, he believed prisoner's story to be true. A constable who was sent for, stated that hearing of prisoner's arrest, lie called on prosccutrix, and she admitted freely to him that they bad been in company drinking together during the early part of the evening, and that the man had given litrJ,2, The cass was dism'ssed. Foul Chimney.—E. Plummer was fined five 1 shillings and costs, for not keeping the chimney of his ■ dwelling house clean, so that it took fire on Monday. ; Furious Hiding.—John Harper was called to i answer a charge of riding furiously in Princes and ■ Stafford-street, but no appearance was made, a con- ! stable giving the information tiiat plaintiff had left s for Melbourne the previous clay. The case was gone s into and the offence being proved, a line of Li and i costs was imposed. > CIVIL CASES. 3 Evading Toll Dues.—James Turner was ac- - cused by E. Hooper, of attempting to evade the toll dues, chargeable at West Taieri ferry, by having on i the 2tth November, forded the river with four buli locks and a dray, half a mile from the ferry. Defenj dant di i not appear, and judgment was given in abs sence for 3s. 6u. ths lawful toll and costs, and a fine s of 203. for thc'attempteil invasion. John Weaves w.is a charged with the same offence, ia hiiviug on th* 3)&h d November, crossei tho ford with two "hordes and a I ii dray. -Defendant. admitted the ofleuc.*. but stated h that he offered to pay the toli when informed-that ha r was acting illegally. Plaintiff state I this was the case »f but he had been put to ago d deal of (rouble in the matter, and as defendant seemed to have a doubt he - brought it before the court. Defendant excused his n ignorance on the plea that ho wa* no schoiir, and is t-ouli] not read the notices posted along the ro:id. His tt Worship advised him ti get some one to do s> for him i- when he saw a new notice, and gave judgment for n the reduced amount of Is. 6 1. and cotts.

WEBNESDAY, 24TH DECEMBER, 1882. (Hefore A. C. Strode, Esq., 11.M.)

Theft.—Samuri Watson, seaman, was charged with stealing a pair of boots the property of Michael Purcell... Prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to 3 months 1 imprisonment. Forgery.—-Gteorge Augustus WhaUey was brought up on remand charged with forging a" bank cheque for L 3 10s. Mr Macgregor appeared for prisonei.-. After evid.iice had been heard he was fully committed for trial at the Supreme Court. In reply to an application foV;bail lite Worship said he would accept Ll2O for. bimsijlf and two sureties of LGi) each. Prisoner was further charged with attempting to pass a bank order for L.5 with a forged name attached. Owing to the absence of witnesses this charge was remanded till Tuesday. , CIVIT/ CASES. \ Kennedy v Christie—Plaintiff•« claimed 1/20 for loss sustained by the non-delivery of a quantity of oate, contracted for with, defend.'!nt. On the application of Mr Haggitt, a non-suit was granted, p'aiutiff having .sued in his own name when his eftecte arid as9ets were assigned to a trustee. 0, H. Qillss * J. E. Campbsll—The amount claimed, .13.0, wa3 for lighteiing the Vibilia, against, which there was a set oft for good 3 damaged.' The Magistrate held that a cross-action for the damage BhouLd.be brought, and that it could not be received as a set-off to the present claim. Tlia action, which was a friendly one, was therefore dismissed. Smith v Pilmar.—This was a claim for L 55, restricted to 120, in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court, for supplying and erecting the Telegraph posts between .Dunedin and Port Ohalmers for which, piainuff was sub-contraator. The defence was a set off, and also that the material was not accordinpfWcohtraet. ' Judgment for defendant. Marshal and Copland v James Kiddeli j judgment ia absence for amount^ claimed Lls. Mollony fe lleilley; judgment for claim L6sa ia absence; Henry v Barr—Claim 18s; judgment for 16s. Moss v Kerr; judgment for clftitnL7 Steven v Mayhard ; judgment for claim L 9 18j. •,. Metcalf v Wilson; jadgmen'fe for claim L 2 3^. Lamand v JJaird ; judgment for claim lill. Costs were given in every case; : Huddleston 0 Mann.—This was an action, the holder t? fhe drawer of a bill of exclianga for LlfclOs ; j udgmenfc for plaintiff,,: Benry and Co v Cleve and Co—ln the re-hearing of this case Mr Dauiels, auctioneer, was esamined, and liw evidence was sacli that: th» previous decision was reversed) and jttdgmentgiven for plaintifFvLß 17a ' andcosts. ''■'■*■:'■ -±-:' ■"'■■' ■' ";; ■--■■■'; J-.-::-:A. : ■-■-.■.:! Pubchasins A Horsis.—John M'Crae $ Donald M^LeHan.—Tliia was a claim for L2O nncler.the fol'6 win g circumstancas.' Mr Macgregor appearedf; r plaintiff, and :Mr South, fw defesidant; ;; Plaintiff boughtfton^defenaanltahorse^ for li 26 t pn tbe^et-at? ragreiement^tHatif it jvma not sound the ispese should; be-feikeh! bac^andfthes refunded/^ knew nothing about* the merita,o£ a hor^ftti^aiter the purchwe was made « fmud (liscovewU iK'ait \b,<s

I animal was lame in every foot.* A ■written agreement' I of receipt for the, money was given, lilt "some Iptjgfingered customer" had taken it and his meerschaum, pipe from plaintiff's pocket. Defendant knew his relations in the old country, and piofessing to-.be his friend said he would .give the^horse a bargain, ~He, now refused to take hack the horse. Mr Kennedy/ Robert Burns Hotel,-stated be- was present during' the t-ansacrion, and that defendant promised to take back the horse if it did not give satisfaction. The document given was a mere receipt for the money and riot an agreement. Witness would not give £5 for the animal. Defendant could! not recollect of any conversation guaranteeing the horse. Plaintiff wished him to take it back four days after rhe purchase was made, but he, refused to.doso. It was now tied to his fence, and he had given it no food. in reply to Mr Macgregor, he siid ha paid ,£ls for the animal nine months ago, and had worked it during, that time. He bought one for £5 lately, ar.d he' would not take- £80 /or it now He had not yet been offered that sum. His Worship held that the document was only a receipt for the £.6. and the agreement as to the soundness of the horse was verbal.. He therefore gave judgment for; the,restricted, amount, ■■£20 and costs. . ■■:;■*•.,., ■> \j:--.,;,.". > ; V :~"'.i'S f'/■'.'/: ■. r "An UNHAypr Coupra."-~The case of" Helen I Hubert v John Hubert, was again brought before the I Court in another form, -Alr^Barton appeared;for plaintiff ; thft defenlant made; no appsaranco, either personally or by counsel. Mr Barton said an attempt, had been mad* to serve a summons upon.defendant, * but he had disappeared, at all events, be could not be found, and the bailiff of the Court was informed, that hehad gone to Invercargill the previous day.. In the^e circumstances plaintiff applied for protection; from the debts of her husband. There was no doubt she had bsen driven from his door, refuse! a deed;of separation, thehusband 10 tbe last moment claiming all his rights, and now he'had in the eye of the law deserted her,and she was enutledto a protecting, order. His Worship said the application would be better made by^atfilavit. Mr Barton poinre-l out. that the Act. did not say so. II is Worship did not think it should ba_doae.__in ._ppsn Court, and he ; would consider it by''"'afiidavit, Mr Barton agreed, but learning; afterwards that that it should-be-done in open court, he prepared the affidavit and made his application at the close of the ordinary business. He "founded his; application on S'.'ct. 2, Act .24"Victoria, No'.9^which entitles a resident magistrate cr justice of" tlie^.fesi.ce:in^Petty Ses-, sions to make an order, proterSrp^th^property.'.a' desertel wsf; acquires by her:'^rj industry against the husband and any.%editors.pf^hfeV:"-'i.T!ie-.iAct.:alßO. enables her, with such an order, to corn^sJL^stitutJonof any property, .with'-doißijiasß^^''frtnei»i^i>aiid:o: c, any creditor seizes it. "Mr Barton read ftbei affidavit,' which set forth at length, the reasons plalnti}?' had lor believing that her husband had :4&ot&i 'beav His, Worship considered sufficient gf6»ihd;ba't:heea shown for granting the order, and accordingly'he agreed to do so. - '•'■ ;' • ' '■'■'' ■■''■'. -'-s' -■-'• >■• ■■-."■■'-: :■' ■':, ■.-..■ ■ ". -:- : ;K:i'::::'..:\;:\:■■-':■■-■ DDNSTAN V6^iG%GOURT. .: : , (Before Jackson Keddall, Esq, R.M.) ■; ; : , 16th December, ,1862. For^eant Clcavy prosecuted for the Crown. ", Miciiael M'Mahon, for attempting to hold intercourse with the sentenced prisoners working on the Camp, and refusing to demist when warned by the, police, and also for using inciting language tending to produce insubordinate conduce among these menj, was fined 20s and costs, or in default twenty hours, imprisonment. •... . 17th December, 3862.; James Armee, brought up on remand; charged with stealing a board-fmm- a Sawpit belonging ,to-Hill and Co, timber rafters, was further remanded for three days-to allow the prisoner the opportunity of producing the -person-from whom ho stated lie had purchased the board. • ' ; 19th Decembar, 1862. Assault; and Battery.—M. Foxy D. Sinclair. ; The affair arose through the-plaintiff advising the defendant to settle a jumping dispute quietly by a reference to the Commissioner. The plaintiff in his evidence averred that these were the only words used, and that they were peaceably given. The defendant immediately afterwards struck him severely ml the facs with "his fi-sts, and caused blool to flow freely. He then seized a pick and first drove it into his foot, afterwards made another blow at plaintiff with the pick, the point catching his (plaintiff's) clothes just under the Tight arm, and teaming them down to the knee of the trousers. The skin was scratched in one place. By the defendant: Gave you no provocation. Did not use any bad language to you, or say you (defendant) should not have an inch, of ground. Have no interest in the ground of the defendants. Samuel Wiudell deposed to being present aba dispute between the defendants and another man named Monnoy. Heard the complainant quietly advise Sinclair, the defendant, to take his case to the Commissioner, immediately upon giving this advice the defendant struck the plaintiff several times in the face, an 1 cut him very much. Fox then said he should go for the C"taraissioner, upon which the defendant struck the plaintiff. The plaintiff then went away, and upon returning from the camp, the defendant assaulted the plaintiff wirha pick in the manner described by the lust witnesv Did not see or hear the plaintiff give tie defendant any provocation. By the Court: Heard the defendant say be would put the pick through the ul tintiff's foot if he did not ?\j away. This wai after the assault with the fists. )he plaintiff did not use personal violence, and only caugnt hold of the defendant when being knocked down. » The defendant called David Jonss, auctioneer, who said he saw tha whole fight. Fox told the defendant that he was well known upon Gabriel's Gully, and immediately afterwards saw them commence fighting. Saw the defendant put his pick through the ' plaintiff's foot. Think it was accidentally done. Did'not hear the defendant say to tlfi! plaintiff, " Unless y<m get out of the way, 1 will put the pick through you." Th> defendant struck the first blow. Saw tha plaintiff after he was assaulted strike the defendant twice. They were strokes given in defence of himself. ■.-.-. William Graham, carpenter, state! that dunng the dispute between the defendant and Monnoy, he beard the plaintiff say to the defendant. '' Don't you strike him," and immediately after saw him shove the defendant, upon which both parties commenced fighting. Was quite certain that Fox was the irritating party. The plaintiff" did not strike the defendant. Considered that the plaimitf only used enough of violence to prot-ct himself from the assault. Did not say to tha defendant '" Pitch into him,' or- "ive.it the b- !%. Wa^ excite-], but do not think these words were used by me: The defendant wa< fined L3, and LI 3-; 6d co-ts ; or, in default, 14 days imprisonment. The plaintiff made an application for some compensation. ; ; J umes Armee, brought upon remand for stealing aboard from a saw-pit, was now sentenced.to one month's imprisonment. ciyil cases. . Bernove^s v Kilufo.ur—Assault, L*2Q; case disnmsed.; Be:.tv Lush—Fraudulently- appropriating a horse. Insufficient evidence, and c-ise dismmis-^d. Brain v Lawrence—Building an oven, Li ss; verdict.-L3.33, and-cost* 21s. ' ■ Nelson v M'Leod—For timber, L 7; case heard before, dismissed. M'Manus v Bourke—Building an oven, L 6; verdict for plaintiff^ with costs. Howe v Nixou—No appearauce. : Croker and Co v Macd >naid Breach of contract in non-delivery of fl mv, Ll9 10s ; verdict for plaintiff by default with costs. , Griffin v Mac-lohald and Smybh—Breach of building contract, LlO 33 ; verdict for plaintiff for L6 3s and costs. : ■ Beit v Bairl—Storekeepers' partnership accounts LlB 10; verdict for plaintiff, L 8 10s and costs. A FoRTtTNATTJS' Cap.-—Somewhere about the year 1789, so runs the tale^ a travelling; millwriglit— in those days th'e.ldng3 of irieahanics-—footsore, and . with the bi-oadesinorthern Doric:accent,' stopptid at ■ Soha, a locality once indicative of field snorts, but j then the engine factory of Boulton and \Yatt, and asked for work. His aspect was 3i«tie better than that of " bpggary and poor look-*"/'; and Mr Boultoir bade him Goi. speed to some other workshop, when, ■ as he was turning awny tbirowfuljy, Mr Boulton suddenly called him back. ''What kind of hat's yon ye have on'your head, my man 1 *','.-'■;**:■ Jt's just timtner, sir." '•' limber, my man, lei's look at; it. Where did you get iti' ''I just- made it, sir, my ainsel*.!"-: How did you make it?' •' I just turned it in the kthie.' "But it's oval, man, a.nd a lathe turns things round.'' " Aweel I ju&r gar'd th^ latliie gang anither gate fo please iae. I'd along journey; afore nic, an' I thocht I'd have a ;hat to^ keep out water,..aud I hadno inucklij sitler to spare; arid Ivjust made inc." By '; t his inborn mechahism tW man had inventedJheova,!;lathe, andm^de-hw hat^;-andythe^^ hat made his fortune;; Me Bpul ton wias not the ?man ■ to loiß soyaluableia helper); at l^tv in? tho^e ddys wh^n gbod^^ nieh were scarce^ William:' Murddcktbpk" the1 suit "and sei^ice, under Boulton, and Watt,^arid in 1784 mad 6 the'firstawheel' vehicle imp^l|ed:Tby steam itfthis-England of ibxak—riiade iti with the wry hiirid| find bram-cunnhjgj|tliat had beforeproduced the* limnier hat;'^ xOut of;that? . ?ee3^ after 73yiearai of sowin* a^reding'■ its;pro^' duce, a goodly crop has sprung up. that, like the grain of mu3tar<l-secd, rspleni3hea the civilised earth, and will fyet'civilise the uncivilised.— Roads One Heir Kalfah, a"clerk in the Vienna post ofHc¥, t was latßl±sirrest§(l for embezzling letters, No Ics3; than t^O, pup had been withdrawn from general ciroujaTiQn by'SWacconip!islied f banlsia the compsratlvely ihort'space of eighteen mouths. He was'able" to Bavc a good deal of fuel, owing to the daily supply bt correspondt nco with which he fed \m stovd;-'while in summer, when the quantity of aahes wisfht^excite (Suspicion, he carefully swept them up, put them in paper, and afterwards consigned the packet to tbe river, ifqual'y with the number of the letter*, the. amount of money'contained m them baffles calculation. *'• ' '*"> ..i % &*