Untitled

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 20, 23 December 1863, Page 2

Tuesday, 22md December, 1863. Domestic ImrEucmr*—^George Walker was charged with provoking a breach of the peace. The provocation alleged, consisted in the conduct of the defendant towards his wife ; but -whether she had offered any provocation or not did not appear. She was, however, compelled to seek the protection of the police. The Bench, after such ft aevere lecture XfX the defendant on lis maritime dutie* and behavioi as must have had a salutary effect on him in particular, .and reticent husbands generally, inflicted a fine of 40s. It appeared that amongst other proceedings which the defendant took in order to annoy his wife, he ransacked her wardrobe, and made a pile of the clothes outside, when procuring one of the domestic utensils, more useful than mention able, he submitted the finery to a process of dyeing which was quite novel. Insanity. — J. C. Jones, who had been remanded on the previous day for medical examination, was found to be incapable of taking care of himself, and was consequently further remanded for medical attendance and advice. Civil Cases, hogan v. crowe. BJr South appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Macdonald for the defendant. An action to recover £100, for the wrongful conversion of a horse, the property of plaintiff ; £60 of the amount being for the value of the horse, and £40 for damages alleged to be sustained by the loss of the services of the horse, while detained by defendant. From the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses, it appeared that some months ago, plaintiff and defendant were in partnership. At that time plaintiff had the horse in question on his own private property, and having lent it to defendant, he took it out to Rosslyn Bush, -and never returned it. The rebutting evidence for the defendant was given for the purpose of showing that the horse was' the joint property of the partnership, ' and had been taken out to Rosslyn Bush by the instructions of plaintiff himself. Subsequent to that, defendant had never seen the horse. The evidence was of so contradictory a character, that the magistrate not being able to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant had committed perjury, dismissed the case, each^party to pay his own costs.