RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 358, 29 March 1861, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

[Before J. Poynter, Esq., Resident Magistrate]

Wednesday, March 27, 1861. The first case in this court was the question of fines for i,cn-attendance at drill, imposed by the Captain of the Naval Brigade against Messrs. Stock, Calder, and Carter, members of that company, and which stood adjourned from the previous Wednesday.

Mr. Travers appeared for the defendants. The Magistrate, before calling any witnesses, recommended Mr. Akersten to withdraw the cases, and to make out a fresh set of rules, as he could do nothing for the Company in their present position.

James B. Calder sworn (examined by Mr. Akersten): There was a court of appeal for the Brigade Company, and the defendant Carter had an opportunity of stating his case to that court, if he chose todo so; but he did not do it. I was fined, and the court of appeal remitted a part of that fine (55.) ; you also was fined, but none of your fines were remitted. Two shillings and sixpence was the fine imposed for non-com-missioned officers: Mr. Carter is a non-commis-sioned officer.

The Magistrate said the Captain had no authority or right to alter the time of drill when it had been once fixed. Should any alteration be found necessary, it should have been sent down to the Governor for his approval; he Bhould therefore dismiss the case.

Mr. Akersten said in consequence of that decision he believed there would be no drill.

Henry Hudson, of the London Tavern, was summoned by Mark Blythe and Joseph Taylor, for ,£lO 10s., being the amount of a Lodge Promissory Note, which defendant signed as surety for another party. The Magistrate said defendant would have to pay the amount, but that he could summon the other party for it after he had paid it. Interest, 15s. 9d. To be paid in a month. Eliza Reynolds was summoned by Mr. Bury for £4 6s. lid. for school fees due for defendant's daughter. A letter was put in, by Mr. Travers, acknowledging the debt, and asking for three months to pay it in. Judgment accordingly. ..:•:«, Hurley v. Bittels for £8. The debt was admitted, but a set off was put in by defendant amounting to £11 ss. 4d., which the plaintiff repudiated. The case throughout was a vejy laughable one.

Thomas Bittels sworn: I sold 2 cwt. of potatoes to Pratt and Scott, and took it out in meat which was consumed in Hurley's house, I was stopping there as a lodger; did a day's work for plaintiff; took 60 lbs. of bacon when 1 first went to plaintiff's house, which was consumed by the family and myself, and for which I have charged him Is. 2i. per Ib. Paid Pratt and Scott IBs. 4d. out of my own pocket for Hurley, and paid £5 10s. to Hooper and Co. for beer consumed also in the house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adams: I was not indebted to Pratt and Scott when I went to live at Hurley's, I worked one day, carrying timber for plaintiff, lrom B]in the morning till four in the afternoon ; but had no authority from Hurley to get the beer.

Mr. Adams, for the defence, said it was a trumped up defence by Bittels to try to escape the claims of the plaintiff. Mr. Hurley took him into his house when he was very badly off; and many things were furnished by the defendant which plaintiff did not wish for. The beer was drank principally by the defendant and his friends, whom defendant took there for his pleasure on a Sunday morning. Maurice Hurley sworn: Defendant lodged at my house for twenty weeks; I charged him at the rate of 15s. per week for board, lodging, washing, and mending—he has not been charged anything extra for the two latter items; he has paid £4; he brought'meat'to my house, but hot by my authority; I never ordered any beer for any mortal man; lie brought gin into my house, but I got none,of it. I play the fiddle, and he used to have a regular flare up sometimes at my house with the women that he brought there, by dancing with them, and my furniture and chairs were broken in consequence. 1 never asked him to assist me in any work; the bacon was not used by me or my family to my knowledge. Cross-examined: Defendent never paid Armstrong any money for me; the meat was consumed in my house. By the Bench: We had no quarrel; the Bishop called aiid tried to convert defendant, but it was of no use.

The Magistrate said he believed that some of the goods had been used by the plaintiff, and he should therefore give a verdict for plaintiff for £5 155., and costs.

Forman v. Thomas Pierce (Roll-and-go) for £1 14s. for goods. Verdict for the amount, with costs. Wm. Andrews (for local committee of education at Motueka) v. Ihotnas Gilpin for education rate. The case stands adjourned for a fortnight to inquire into it: the Bench thinking that the defendant was not liable to pay the rate. Wm. Hough v, Christina Frank and Wm. Fox, for £'4 —debt admitted. £2 had been paid into court since the summons had been taken out. Judgment for £2. Alex. Morrison v. George Thorburn for £20. Judgment for the amount. Mr. btamper for plaintiff.

J. A, Langford v. James Drew for £1 9s. 2d. Judgment by consent, costs 3s. Trustees of J. A. Langford v. George Harding for £20, for goods supplied. Judgment for the amount, costs 9s.

The court will not sit on Wednesday next.