RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 108, 30 October 1863, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Monday, 26th Oct. 1863. (Before M. Price, Esq., K.M.) John Langford, charged with being drunk in the public street, on the previous night, was leniently fined 55., the police informing the Bench that the offender was very tractable in going to the lock-up. Edward Culnane wascharged by Sergeant Chapman with committing a breach of one of the Town Board Ordinances, -by excavating on the footpath in Ison-street. Jt appeared that the defendant was excavating for the entrance to a cellar under premises he was erecting, and ; had failed to make application to the Town , Board authorities for the necessary permis- , sion — a permission which would liave been readily granted. The fact 'of the peilnission : not having been applied for, was proved by the Town Clerk. The Bench imposed a penalty of 20s. Civil Cases.— Limited Jurisdiction. vine v. menzies. m'kay v. homer. ■'. By the mutual consent of the legal gentlemen engaged on the respective sides in these two cases, they were adjourned to the 4th November. BOWSER V. HIGGIB. Claim for ,£2O, for damage done to a boat hired by defendant from plaintiff, and for hire of the same. Mr Weston appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Harvey fi t the defendant. The plaintiff's wife detailed the circumstances under which the boat was hired. The defendant, had, she stated, hired the boat at the rate of 10s. per week, and after keeping it for some time, had got it irreparably damaged by being stove In, while using it in. the river-. The witness proved that she had bought the boat for £7, and that it was at the time of being lent to defendant, fully worth £10. The statement as to its value was borne but by the evidence of the plaintiff. The defence offered by the defendant, who had paid £10 into court as full payment of the claim, was that the boat was originally only worth 305, , and that it w« s so rotten it would not bear repairing; but as he admitted that he had considered it sufficiently sea-worthy and safe to intrust cargo to a considerable amount in it, and his witnesses failing to prove that the plaintiff had over-estimated its value, the Bench gave a verdict for the full amount claimed, with costs. JJROWN V, •WILLIAMS. Claim for £3 58. for board and lodging. The plaintiff having given evidence that the defendant was lodged and boarded in his house, for a week and a-half, and had received a loan of ss»— making up the amount claimed, the defendant endeavored to set up a defence that he had entered into a surt of agreement with the plaintiff to receive his board and lodging as an equivalent for •• making himself handy about the house," doing any odd work. The assertion was partially disproved both by liis own admission and by the evidence of plaintiff, and his manager and book-keeper. The Bench gave a verdict for £2 155., allowing the balance of the claim for a day's wages due to the defendant.

'.. .WIILWAMS V. WILKINSON. I Claim for £20 for work and labor in the j erection of a chimney. The defendant endeav* bred to dispute the liability on the ground that there were' two other parties engaged in the same contract with himself for building a house, the chimney of which, the defendant had contracted to build, and that his two other partners were both liable with him. Moreover, "Chat he had not received his own money from -the owner of the premises (MrHoldsworth). . The Bench explained to him that as he fdefe'nclant) had expressly contracted with plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to sue -him; and wilfh regard to non-payment, by Mr Holdsworth,the defendant had his remedy by -suing him. Verdict for the full amount. SHAW V. MARTIN Claim for £12 6s Od/for money lent. Mr South appeared for the plaintiff. It appeared that the money had been advanced to defendant by plaintiff before leaving Scotland for this colony, 'to enable the former to pay his passage, 'an agreement being drawn up between them, and signed by defendant, that 3ie "was 'to the amount "as scon as possible." In Court he admitted the debt> but endeavored to avoid payment on the plea that he could not be called on to pay it, as it was not yet "possible" for him to do so. In answer, however to the cross examination of the plaintiff's counsel, it appeared that since his arrival in the colony, he had been in receipt of good wages, and was at present in possession ot some land. The Bench under those circumstances, believed that the defendant's compliance with his portion of the agreement, might, by himself, be construed so indefinitely that the "possibility" of payment might never arrive. A verdict for the full amount was accordingly given. TRAKSTER V. 31'kISOCTC. Mr South appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant being 1 absent, his broflier wished to represent him, and prove a set off against the claim, -but as he was not a partner in the transaction, which was for the cartage of timber &c. to defendant's saw mill, the Bench gave a "verdict for the plaintiff in default of defendant's appearance. The Court then adjourned to next-&$?, at 11 o'clock. Tuesday, 27tbc Oct., 1863. (Before M. Price, Esq , R.M.) Thamas Francis who had been picked up by the police on the previous night in a state of peaceful was fined ss. William Kobinson pleaded guilty to conducting himself in a disorderly manner, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. The arresting constable informed the Bench that the prisoner, on that morning about 3 o'clock, was outside a tent, near theNoith Road, conducting "himself in a very noisy and disorderly manner. There appeared to be a woman inside the te it, with whom the prisoner was quarrelling and. fighting. The Bench sentenced him to pay a fine of 40s. Anne Spence, a woman who had given the police some trouble in arresting her, and carrying her to the locto-up, and -thence to the Court was c harged with using obscene language in the public street. She answered in reply to the charge 1 , that she might as well pleadguilty as not guilty. The language used by the lady, whose appearance -was anything but attractive, either in face or figure, was con i lered by the police as unfit for the ears of the public or the Court, and had to be communicated to to the Bench in writing. The Bench administering a severe censure to the woman, imposed a penalty of 40s,'or the alternative of seven days in gapl. Civil Cases — Limited Jurisdiction, hurst v. parker. The plaintiff sued defendant for £10 10s for professional services rendered under the following circumstances. Plaintiff stated that he had been engaged by the defendant as pianist for defendant's company, performing at tiie Union Hotel. He agreed for his own services at the rate of £7 10s per week, and those of a violinist— the amount of the latter's salary, £3 per week, to be paid also to plaintiff, making a sum of £10 10s, to be paid the plaintiff weekly. He fulfilled the engagement for the first week, and received the proper amount, viz,, £10 10s, from defendant. At the commencement of the second week the performances of defendant's company not meeting with so much success as he anticipated, in consequence of -the disadvantages of the weather, they were discontinued after two night's performances Defendant accordingly only pleaded indebted for the two nights; t.ie plaintiff claiming for the full week in accordance with the original terms of the agreement. Th 3 defence offered for defendant (for whom Mr South appeared) was, in effect, that subseqnent to the termination of the first week's engagement, he had entered into a second one with plaintiff, by whicli he was to pay him. by the night — as often as the company performed only, and not by the week. The evidence given, howevei. by the defendant himself, and that of a witness — Miss Annie Beaumont — failed to prove that any second verbal agreement had bee l C( n • eluded between the parties. The Bench decided that the plaintiff was entitled to the full week for his services, viz., £7 10s, but not entitled to sue for the services of the violinist. Defendant having paid £3 10s into Court for two night's services of plaintiff and the violinist, the Bench gave a verdict for £4 additional. YOLNG V. BROWN. For £2 for medical services performed. The defendant denied his liability, on the ground that he Lad merely asked the plaintiff. for medicines, and not advice. It appeared by the plaintiff's evidence, and the defendant's admission, that defendant had called in the plaintiff in the regular manner for his advice to his wife, who was unwell. The Bench gave a verdict for the full