RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 1782, 19 August 1873, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before H. H'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) Fbh>at, Atjghtst 15. John Busbridge and Elizabeth Busbridge ■were charged with being neglected children. The children in question have been for some time past maintained by the Ladies* Benevolent Society, owing to desertion by both parents. They were ordered to be sent to the Industrial School in Dunedin for seven years. Wilson v. Hume. — This was a charge of assault. Mr Wade appeared for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he was engaged as waiter at the Club Hotel, and that ?on the night of the Ist August, there being a ball at the hotel, he was in attendance, and was requested by tome visitors to move the door of the ball-room backwards and forwards, to produce a current of air in the room. Whilo so employed, defendant had assaulted him, by seizing him by the neck, and hurling him with violence against the doorway of the passage, by which his forehead had been cut. He called as witnesses Constable Blake, who stated that in his opinion plaintiff was sober at the time of the oocurence, and William Bidley, who deposed to the injury plaintiff had sustained, as also to advising him to apply to |a surpeon, and stated that plaintiff was sober. For the defence it was urged that plaintiff was intoxicated and unfit for^ duty on the evening in question, that it was necessary to remove him, and that no more violene« had been used than was necessary in order to do so, and three witnesses were called, namely, Messrs W. E. Brunton, George Jeffries, and James Oreig, all of whom deposed that I plaintiff was intoxicated, and that defendant had not used improper force in his removal. His Worship held that the intoxication had been proved, and that defendant was justifiedfin removing plaintiff, and although the cut on the temple showed that some considerable violence had been used, he held that defendant was not to blame for it, plaintiff having brought the injury upon himself. The information was dismissed, with costs, £2 11s 6d. Cochran and Blackwood v. Campbell.— His Worship, on the application of Mr Harvey, gave judgment in the interpleader case herein, in the matter of costs. The order of the Court would be that no costs should be allowed. Wilson v. Hume. — Claim for £3, being for one week's wages, £1 10s. and a week's wages in lieu of notice, £1 10s. Mr Wade for defendant. The evidence in this case was not taken, the claim arising out of the foregoing case. His Worship held that it having been proved that plaintiff was intoxicated, he was liable to be dismissed, and could not claim wages ;on the other hand, if plaintiff had not been dismissed, but had left his employment in consequence of what had occurred, he was not entitled to be paid for the current week, and in any case, a week's notice was unnecessary. Judgment was given for defendant, with coets, 9s. Moitoay, Attocbt 18. Martin CHaUoran was charged with being an habitual drunkard. This being the fifth appear"•noe of defendant, during this year, either for drunkenness or larceny, and, he being a notoriously troublesome character to the police, he was sent to gaol for one month. Peter Mentiplay was fined 10s and costs, 11s 6d, for driving a dray on the footpath of Dee and Yarrow-street*.