RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 39, 5 February 1864, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, Febbttaby 3bd, 1864. (Before M. Price, Esq., K.M.) Removing Timber fkom: Ckown Lands. — William Adair and Henry Downing, charged with removing timber from Crown Landß •without a license, were remanded to Monday. AssAtriTiKa a Constable in the Exectt- . tionofhisDuty. — Henry Grressonwas charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of Ills duty, at the Green Hills. From the statemont of Sergeant Connelly, stationed at the Green Hills, it appeared that the prisoner (who, by his own admission was drunk at the time,) waa standing in front of a store, when, as the Sergeant was passing, the prisoner, without the least provocation, swung an iron bucket round his head, and made a blow at the Sergeant with it. The magistrate would not hear of the prisoner's excuse of drunkenness, but . with a very severe censure on such " abominable conduct," he sentenced him to a fortnight's imprisonment, with hard labor. Civil Cases. - Masox v Moore.— £s 10?., for goods sold. Verdict by default. Salek v Hall. — £3 10s. Verdict by default. Sanders v. Caxdeb. and BjiACKLOCK.— Mr. Weston appeared for the plaintiff,- Mr. Macdonald for the defendants. An action for the recovery of £1G 10s. 2d., balance of account for preparing plans and specifications of a building in Tay-strect. In tliis case (partially hoard on the previous day) the defendants' pica that the plaintiff's work was insufficiently done hi strict accordance with the agreement, was substantiated, the Bench deducting £7 from the claim, leaving the difference between that amount and £16 10s. 2d. to be paid by defendants, each party to pay tlveir own costs. . McKay v. Maclean and Company.— £3 15s. Od. for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiffs. • (Messrs. M'Culloch o.nd Fenton took scats on the Bench.) • Mauciiaxt v. Clarke and others. Mr. Jlacdonaldappcaredfcrthe plaintiff; Mr. Weston for ths defendants. • This was an action brought by the late engineer to the Town Board against the Chairman and others for thereeovery of £100, which plaintiff alleged to be due for damages sushiinud by wrongful dismissal. The circumstances, as detailed in the opening address of the plaintiffs counsel, were, briefly, these. Plaintiff had entered into a twelro months' agreement dating from the 23rd February. 18S3, with the Board, to perform the duties of engineer, at a salary of £400 per annum, and, as he alleged, was wrongfully discliarged therefrom, and only paid his salary to the end of Koveinber in the eamc year. ; . ■.[ The general pica of the defendants was, in effect, a justification of the dismissal of the plaintiff on the gronnd of wilful negligence and misconduct, and by his refusal to obey and carrvout the instructions of the Board. For tne plaintiff's case Mr. Macdonald called It. M. Marchant, civil engineer, "who gavo evidence of his appointment on the 23rd February, 1863, to tlla office of engineer to the Town Board, J« 0. -Hunter, dork to the Board; produoed the muratea of the Board, which allowed that on the 23rd February the plaintiff vras Mfc pointod fov a ycai* at a satlary of £400 p^ anuwm, f Xha following letter wkl resolution wero fQ?™lcd to piftlntiff. " vPown Board Office^ 7th NpTi} WS, Sii?,*.l hate thehpaor (q state th&t ? m xa«tariioted \& the $own Eqß*4