RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 51, 5 May 1863, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.) Friday, Ist Mat, 1863. abusive language. Edward~Whiting was charged with a viri tion of the Police Ordinance of 1862, by co ducting himself on 30th ult. so. as to provo a breach of the peace, in ordering, two of 1 workmen to knock down Mr Duvally, bail while in the execution of his duty. Mr Whiting acknowledged haying hasti used the expression in question, but n much provoked at the time by men corni about his premises interrupting the woi and also by the manner in which complains threw down the paper, not being able to i cognise him by his dress or any- thing else a public oflicer. — Duvally deposed: Am acting as bail in this province. Went yesterday, 30th ul to the premises where Mr Whiting was e gaged at work. Went up to him and said him, " I presuirie, Sir, you are Mr Whiting and presented the summons ; he said, " Wh do you summons me for i I won't take il and then threw it down on the groin Walked away ; never said or did any thii on the occasion likely to provoke anger the contrary was anxious to be as mild\l civil as possible. Two workmen were ini yard. He called out to them, "If thatm comes again, knock him down.'' By Defendant: Was accompanied by young man going down to the jetty, a fellc passenger of mine, and my little boy, v?l was going down to the Grammar school. _ not know you before. Was making enquiri for you at the building, of parties at woi there. These parties were with me when was about the premises. You were at t! store at the time, putting something into t! cart. You did not tell mp not to annoy yt for a few moments. After you rejected t! paper, -did not turn baek much excited, b; did turn round to accommodate you t! more by telling you the date of the sui mons. Did not in the most insulting manni call out to you before all the men presen Did not tell you when I first came that I v; a public officer. Cannot say at what di tance it was from you that I turned roun There were two men there neaier to you tb; to me at the time. Must say I was ve mucd snrprised that a gentleman in yen position should conduct himself in such manner. Defendant had no witnesses to call ; 1 could only say that he was very much pr voked at the time by the annoyance of parti continually coming about his premises ints rupting the workmen. If he allowed this] go on he should get no work done at a Had he known that complainant was a pui lie oflicer, by an^ public badge or mark ofiice, this would not have occurred ; b s.einghim roaming about the premises wil two or three parties, and feeling himself i suited by the public manner in which defe dant performed his office, defendant admitt that he had hastily made use or the expre sions attributed to him. His Worship said all this was no excu for such conduct. Because defendant fe annoyed at the time, he had no right to ord his workmen to knock down a public offici in the execution of his duty. Was ve much surprised to see a party in defendant position standing where he did ; and if! had expressed anything like regret or ap logy for what had occurred, it would 1 some extenuation of the offence, but the a tempt to justify such conduct formed an a gravation of the original offence. B Worship said he was aware that a bailiff an officer to whom is attached a certa amount of public odium, having often ve unpleasant duties to perform, but so long he performed those duties in a proper mai ner, he should receive protection from tj Court. If, in the execution of his office, t!| bailiff exceeded his duties, the remedy open in the courts of justice; but Under prfj sent circumstances any public officer of tj government should receive such protectifl as should enable them to go about as safe a any other persons, without apprehension :< personal violence. As this was - the first.o fence of the kind, the Court would visit with a lenient sentence, honing it would » occur again, otherwise His Worship legret* that he had not power to impose some- ten of imprisonment. Fined 6s 6d costs. , CIVIL, cases. , M'Donald v. M'Crystal, for the recovery' Ll2 Bs. Plea, not indebted. : Donald M'Donald deposed V I am a saddle residing at Invercargill^ all the items, in.tl account produced, havej been supplied ,byn to the defendant. ; I have not.. received mo! than Ll towards the account-though that domanded the amount; defendant ha* p meoff fronvtim-e to time. , ' ..'" * y'\ By Defendant: T did receivelan Yorder _% X.6 on aocount of - side-saddle, of o which I- J 1 turned you. Ll V have given yottYpiredit | that in iny books,.hut,the present is : anotfo account altogether,. Defendant . .said thai

allowed time he could bring evidence to show that he had a contrary bill against plaintiff, that more than balanced tlie debt. Remanded till next day. Connell v. Williams, for the Recovery of L2O which had been paid to defendant, to cure two chimneys from smoking, which defendant had failed to do. Mr South appeared as counsel for com£„.iinant, Mr M*Donald for defendant. Connel deposed: 1 am landlord of the Commercial Hotel; soon after I purchased .that property, I found that the chimneys C_moked so badly that it was absolutely necessary to get something done to them. Told the defendant, who was a fellow passenger, that I would be at the expense of any alteration, if he would undertake to cure them effectually from smoking. Defendant called in and inspected the chimneys in my presence and said it was impossible to do anything without pulling down and rebuilding them altogether. After he had done so, I found that they smoked worse than ever, so that it was quite impossible to carry on the business, with any fire in the house, the cook was compelled to leave, and some rooms required re-papering in consequence of the injury done by the smoke. I had j \everal interviews with defendant, but could j get no satisfaction from him ; paid him in all J L27 for labor performed ; reduced to L2O to j bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. Was obliged subsequently to call in Mr I Dalton, who inspected them, and found that they must smoke, from the imperfect and faulty manner in which they were built. , Having made the same proposal to Mr Dalton, he took them down the second time, and rebuilt them for L4O, and now the smoking is effctuallv stopped. By Mr M'Donald : I said to defendant, "Do ' not take one brick down unless you can render thtm perfectly comfortable andf ree form smoke. I will pay youwhatever you charge, and the expense of any material you may require." I paid you 18s. per day for four I weeks besides the material required. At your suggestion I got some tin and put it on the the chimney -tops ; this not curing the smoking, you told me you would build flues at the back, but did nothing further to them for the last five months. Defendant never asked permission to cut through a beam or stud while rebuilding the chimney, but came and offered rae L5 as compensation, saying he knew they were imperfectly built I never interfered with him while the work was in \ progress. j Mr M'Donald applied to have the case \ adjourned to permit the attendance of witj nesses on defendant's part. Mr South had ao j objection. \ Adjourned to Monday, 4th inst. • Saturday, 2nd May. j John Heneries was charged by Constable 1 Reedj with being drunk and disorderly last j night. Defendant admitted the charge ; j w*as just down from the Lake, and troubled with diarrhcea, and unfortunately took too much. Fined ss. Rowdies. — R. W. Harvey and W. Kelly ■rere charged with being drunk, and assault,ng Constable Ross, while in the execution If his duty last night, in Dee-street. ConItable Ross deposed that he was ou duty at SLbout quarter past one last night ; saw the •bro prisoners coming from Esk-street into )ee-street ; they were shouting and talking ery loudly ; told them to go home quietly, • ad not make any disturbance, Harvey aid, " Mind your own business," and Kelly hook his fist in my face, and jostled against ne. Another constable was with me at the ime. Prisoners were both very drunk. This vidence was corroborated by a second contable. Prisoners admitted being drunk, but ad no recolle'j : on of anything else. Harvey iated that he was a carpenter, working at tbe harf, and was going home. Harvey was ned 20s. and Kelly 40s. CrviL Case. C. Douglas v. Pendleton. — Claim for Ll4, ir lighterage. A party app ared for defenint, .who stated that his vessel had just leared out, and was then on the point of arting, and applied to have the case adurned. His Worship could not giant the >»at!jfccation, not being made by counsel enLged in the case. Tbe Police Clerk read the position of the bailiff as to serving the immons on defendant. Charles Douglas de- . Bed that he claimed the amount, Ll4, for :hterage, from defendant, who refused payr Mt, unless a commission ef 5 per cent. r ire allowed him on tbe amount. Never ide any such agreement with defendant, , e r with any merchants who employed him. j. iptain Hnghes, of the Bride, deposed that . * I had allowed such commission of 5 per ■d r t- ' w i t^ oufc making any objections. The ! lurt recommended defendant, in any future JntractS; to make especial mention of anyng of the sort. It would not do to conA>y ct for 8s per ton, and then afterwards try reduce it by 5 per cent. Though Captain he ghes might allow it, that was no reason in )' plaintiff should : the Captain might be *o re kind-hearted or liberal-minded than 4s er people. Verdict for plaintiff for Ll4, h 15s costs. .■K.. )onald M'Donald v. John M'Crystal. — s case was further adjourned to Monday, inst. Monday, 4th May. les BSTHU CTING THE FOOTPATH. Samuel EW [>berd was charged with obstructing the lie thoroughfare in Tay-street, on the inst. Defendant admitted that he had :ed his cart across the footpath, at Messis 6 k and Buller's, to hoist a cask out of the i, as he was unable to carry it. Mr. 0 ey, as counsel for the prosecution, stated I 0 simple circumstances of the case were ••—Defendant backed his cart across the ) 3 ath, obliging the foot-passengers to walk nto the street. - The Court did not know these footpaths should not be proclaimed. arvey contended that, irrespective alto- _ /% rof that matter, supposing merely th»t )f the road was obstructed, so as not to any passengers to pass, it would be ■5 y sufficient to form an indictable offence. 0 3* i Worship asked whether Mr Harvey t to say, that if a party merely drew up rt across the road for a short time, that I constitute a nuisance ? — Mr Harvey i, Yes ; that he could prove the obion ; but, under any circumstances, he t wish to punish the man, but merely the question as to the legality or illeof the indictment. — His Worship that he would require time to pro--6 an opinion on that question. Re- '& till Tuesday. 0 CIVIL CASES. ton v. Town. — On the application of % this case was adjourned to Saturst. Jonald v. M'Crystal — Adjourned from In this case, which had already fop considerable time on a previous oclthe plaintiff repeated his former evig 0 ' f o^ P r °d u ced his day-book and ledger 2 the account. Defendant, who was ' a order by the Court on the last occat mitted having received the items in 0 ' * t i, but alleged that plaintiff had not 0 *r'i ha credit for all the sums received 1 6 Pendant. Defendant cross-examined with respect to' some erasures that '1 in the day-book, who deposed that , ■'] been made at the time of entry, ■ified in some following entries. De- ( was called to order by Mr. Mac--3 0 counsel for the plaintiff, and reto confine himself to questioning ' ■■ i and not to make assertions > same time. Defendant replied ■e was addressing the Court, h it was a court of equity, and 3 Y ''canery, it would take into consideo Y 'efact of these erasures appearing in 3, . y took. The Court said that the mere or -i' ie appearance of 'erasures inthe dayg $ YB. n o proof that the items had not ie is_e*B# ? ve( * hy defendant, especially as he ' A ''ted the fact, and could produce no — '

receipt of having paid the same. Defendant being sworn, deposed that he, had paid plaintiff already more than" the amount of the debt, though no entry thereof appeared in the ledger ;, but if allowed time he could produce proof of his assertion. ' ; The Court said if defendant wished to dispute any of the entries, he should put the case into counsel's hands. There being nothing brought forward to disprove the accounts, the Court gave judgmentiin. favor of plaintiff, withlßs cost*. M'Crystal v M'Donald — Counsel for plaintiff having applied for time to secure the atendance of an essential witness, John Clarke, it was adjourned co next Monday, llth inst. Smoking Chimney Case.— Connell v. William : In this case, adjourned from last week, William Haggitt corroborated the evidence of Mr Connell of the Commercial Hotel. James Dalton deposed that he was a bricklayer, experienced in building chimneys ; was employed by plaintiff to inspect certain chimneys in the commercial Hotel, about four weeks since. Considered them to be built faultily, as the gathering was only 14 by 7 inches, instead of 14 by 9 inches, and too near the floor. Witness took them down and re-built them for L27, and they did not smo e.^ One of them, the kitchen chimney, was built separately, on the last occa«on. Defendant's counsel called Defendant, John Williams, Joseph Carey, and David Robert Jones, who deposed that as skilled tradesmen, they could not positively guarantee any chimney from smoking, and they considered defendant had performed his work in a skilful manner. Also, that the cost of rebuilding the shafts of the chimneys from about ten feet above the ground to twenty-six feet high, would be about L6. James Dalton, re-examined by the Court, deposed that it was necessary to rebuild them from the bottom, as they shook from the foundation not being deep enough. Built an oven besides the kitchen chimney ; should estimate the additional expense at about LlO beyond the original woTk. His Worship said he could not see why bricklayers should not be responsible as well as all other tradesmen for the manner in which their work was executed. Here, what one man undertook and failed to do, another tradesman succeeded in accomplishing. Judgment for plaintiff (deducting LlO additional expense) L9 10s, and > cost to day of adjournment Ll 4s.