RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1613, 30 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Campbelltown, Saturday, July 27. * (Before Henry M'Culloch, Esq., R.3f., and Geo. • Webster, Esq., J.P.) Daniel M'Phee was charged by the police with having in his possession, on Friday night, the 26th inst., a box of cigars, which he had removed from the steamer Tararun, with intent to evade the duty on the same, and so defraud Her Majesty's revenue. Prisoner pled guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of three time 9 the valuo of the goods, viz., £4, or one month's imprisonment.

iHTEBCAR&ILIi, SaTTTBDAY, JITIT 27---(Before H. M'Gulloeh, Esq., R.M.) James M'lntosh, of Limestone Plains, wa» brought up on remand. The evidence of Dugald M'Donald, who proved having received and presented the order in quostion, was heard. ' This closed the case for the prosecution. On the application of Mr Wade, the case was further adjourned till Thursday next, for the production of a witness for the defence. The prisoner was then liberated upon bail. Perkins v. Grieve was a claim for £3 10s for damages sustained bj defendant driving awaylive miking cows, the property of plaintiff. Mr Wade for defendant. It appeared from the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant that tha cattle were trespassing on land occupied by defendant, and that he had in consequence driven them across a creek, anJ that plaintiff did not find them for three days. Plaintiff had no depasturing licence, and neither his land nor that in the occupation of defendant was fenced. His Worship held that no claim had been made out, and gave iudgment for defendant, with costs, £1 10s. Beaven v. Sutton was a claim for £5, value of a Leicester ewe, and 10s for the fleece. Mr Wade for defendant. The evidence in this case waa somewhat voluminous, the sheep in question being claimed by the plaintiff as hi 9 property, and admitted to have wandered on the dolendant's ground. For the defence it was contended that the animal was one of six, placed in the defendant's charge by his brother, Mr Thomas Sutton. His Worship dismissed the case, stating that the question of ownership had not been made out by either party to his satisfaction. Tapper v. Lewis. — Mr Watle for plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for defendant. This was a claim for £70 3s, for gootls supplied to the defendant and others, who had been working a claim at Camai Beacii. The delivery of the goods in question was fully proved, and the case ultimately turned upon the question whether the parties to whom the goods were supplied were co-partners, and whether the defendant Lewis was a member of such co-partnery. His Worship decided both points in the affirmative, and gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs, £5.