RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 49, 29 February 1864, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Saturday, Febtutah-? 2Vth, 1884!. , (Before M. Price, Esq., R.M;) DrukkE27JTESS.— Two persons were fined 5s each for tliis offence. Towji' Ixspectob's CiunGE. — Ralph Shaw of the Alhambrft "Hotel, Kelvin -street, was .summoned by the Town Inspector for permit' ting ft nuisance": to exist on his premises. The nuisance eowplsmed of consisted of tho defoctivo arrftngwnohfr . of n wafccn^eloeot. -Che Bench imposed iv drib of and costs; MOBS.'-'V/ilHhm M'Phoraon appeared on re* mand, charged with an asg.iult on David Momgofti of tlio Accommodation House hi BenmOre. ■■-..Very, lifctlo ■ further e^idonoo^in addition to that adduced at tlio two previous hearings 'of tlio case : was adduced. Mr. Button, who appeared for Hie prisoner, endeavored to' obtain tho dismissal o£ the prisoner on. the. ground, principally that the slight wound inflicted by the prisoner on ?the prpsecxitor. was justifiable when:; he had been assaulted in the first place by the complainant. The Bench, although leaning to the opinion that the affair occurred through both parties haying too "much drink, yet the Magistrate considered that the case was one that should be dealt with by a jury. The prisoner was committed for trial. Fußiotrs Deivikg-. —A. M'Donald was charged, with driving in the streets so as to endanger tJie lives of foot passengers. The complainant stated that some few days ago he was crossing Dee-street, when the defendant coming along in a buggy which he was driving at a quick trot, drove the vehicle against him, grazing his check, while the wheel went over his leg. ,He was assisted up, and had to get medical advice and treatment for the injuries he had received. The defendant, he stated, did not pull up, or wait to see if he had killed him, but drove on. The defendant endeavoured to show by cross-examining the complainant that he was intoxicated at the time, and that ho was being ted across the street by another man at the time the buggy knocked him down, also that he took every precaution, by calling out to the complainant ( to get out of tho way, in order to prevent an accident. The complainent, however, called a witness who corroborated his (complainant's) statement that ho was perfectly sober at the time. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, remarked that he was determined to put a stop to the system of reckless driving in the streets which prevailed, and which "placed the lives and the limbs of foot passengers in jeopardy all the time they were in the streets. He heard complaints daily of women and children being knocked down by reckless drivers of horses, or vehicles, and ho would be only showing a culpable leniency if he overlooked such cases. As he saw he could only inflict the # maximum penalty of £5, ho should impose a fine of ss. on the defendant, and award costs to the amount of £1 15s. to bo given to the complainant. Civil Cask. C. 11. That 'jhor was summoned by W. Francis for £5, damages, alleged to have been sustained by injuries done to a piano, which had been lent by complainant to defendant. Mr. Harvey appeared for the complainant, Mr. Button for the defendant. The complainant's evidence showed that lie had lent the piano to the defendant in good condition, and after five weeks' use, it had been returned with twelve of the bass strings broken. He admitted that the defendant had given him a written guarantee two days since that he would have the piano put in as perfect order as it was originally, or that, in the event of j not doing, so, he would forfeit £5. The defence to the summons was, that the complainant had accepted the guarantee by wliich the defendant was bound to make good the repairs necessary. Defendant stated to the Bench that he had sent over money to Melbourne, in order to procure the strings requisite, as he could not obtain them either hero or m Dunedin, and had made an arrangement with Mr. Livingstone to put them into the piano, when' they arrived. He added that the equivalent received by the complainant for the use of the piano, was in the shape of complimentary free admissions for all his family to the theatre, and which had been used to the number of five or six nearly every night. The Magistrate said that, under the circumstances of the complainant having accepted the defendant's guarantee to put tho instrument in repair, he could have no claim on him until tho expiration of the agreement. He would, therefore, dismiss the case.