COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 220, 22 June 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

POLICE COU RT.— Yesterday. [Before W. K It A > Kit. Esq., It.M.] DRUNKENNESS, ASSAULT, AND BAD LANGUAGE. Frederick Morgan, a sailor belonging to the ‘ Prince Rupert’ schooner, was charged with being drunk, and with assaulting Constable Coghliu and John Graham (private watchman) in the execution of their duty, and also with making use of obscene language the previous night at Grahamstown. Constable Coghlin stated that the prisoner, who was drunk, struck him and knocked him down and tried to bite him, but with assistance witness and his captive reached the lock-up. John Graham, private watchman, gave corroborative testimony, and stated that he also was assaulted. He went to the assistance of Constable Coghlin, when prisoner attacked him (Graham.) Prisoner was very violent, and used frightfully bad language. He also bit witness and otherwise assaulted him. Detective Murphy also gave evidence of prisoner’s violence and bad language. The accused said he was not drunk and did not remember what occurred, but at the same time if he hail been let alone he would not have been here, but at work on board the ‘ Prince Rupert schooner. The R.M. said lie was always disposed to deal leniently with sailors ashore, but in this case prisoner’s conduct had been

beyond all bounds, and lie must suffer seven dat's’ imprisonment with hard labour for each offence, making in all 21 days. In reply to a question by prisoner, the lI.M. said the Collector of Customs would be communicated with, and prisoner’s clothes and wages would be looked after. John Emery, a sailor, who came to the rescue of Morgan was charged in the same manner as his comrade, and received a like sentence. BREACH OF VAGRANT ACT. John Coppiek was charged, under the above Act, with having no lawful visible means of subsistence. Mr Bullcn said the accused was only released from prison on the f>th, after undergoing a sentence of a month, and he (Mr Bullen) asked on this occasion that such a sentence would be passed as. would cause the accused to be sent to Auckland. The accused made no defence, and was sentenced to three months’ hard labor. DRUNKENNESS. Robert Campbell, on hail, charged with being drunk, did not appear, and the amount of his bail was ordered to bo forfeited. Robert Schofield pleaded guilty to a like offence, and was lined 20s, or 48 hours’ hard labor. <3, RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.— Yesterday. [B.-rove W. I'll ASCII. Esq., 11.31.] 31. 3IACDONNELL V. E. lIONISS AND E. C'. YOUNG. This ease stood over for judgment from last Court day. The R.M. said he had not had time to look into the matter, and lie would reserve his judgment until next Court day. \\\ W. DIXON V. DIXON BROS. This was an action to recover £SO wages. On the application of MrDcdd, the case was withdrawn by consent. N. AND R. TwOMKY V. DIXON BROS. Mr Tyler said this case, which was an action brought under the Contractors’ Debt Act, to recover £23 2s Sd for work and labor, bad been arranged. JAS. STEVENS V. DIXON BROS. This was an action to recover the sum of £SO for work and labor, and was withdrawn by consent. 31. J. I'ERSTOX V. J. FOULSIIA3I. This was a claim for £1 9s 7d for rates, and was adjourned for a week on the application of Mr Perston. Three other summonses for non-pay-ment of rates were withdrawn. GUIDIIALL G.31.C. V. V. WEATHERLY. This was a judgment summons case for £7 4s 9d. Defendant offered to pay 10s per month, and an order was made to this effect, or in default, one months’ hard labor. J. PLACE V. P. F. MARTINSON. In this case, which was an action to recover £29 7s (3d, balance due on a builder’s contract. Mr Tyler said it bad been aranged that judgment should be taken for defendant. O. 31. CREAG II V. M. KONUI. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. Mr Tyler for defendant. This was a claim for £2O 10s Gd, money lent, and was adjourned for a week on the application of counsel. FRYER BROS. V. T. CLARKE, SKXR. AND T. CLARKE JUNR. Defendants confessed judgment in this case, which was a claim for £35, for goods sold and delivered. li. lIILL V. CALDER. Mr TyUr for defendant. This was a claim for £2 10s, wages. Plaintiff deposed that lie is a carpenter and knows defendant, for whom ho worked at James’ Q.G.E. restaurant, Grahainstown, in December last. The charges made were fair and reasonable, and the amount is now due and owing. The defendant stated that he entered into a contract for the erection of James’ Dining Rooms, and plaintiff was employed to assist the men in pulling down partitions, removing gallery, &o. The work was done in a few hours, and defendant demanded £3 10s, saying he could not get the money from James, and must have it from somebody. Eventually witness paid him £1 to “square up the thing,” and he took it. That amount was more than a reasonable, compensation for the work done. A witness was called who stated that lie saw the £1 paid to square the arrangement. If there was anything more doing James was the man to look to. Witness told plaintiff this, and lie replied it was no use backing his cart against James’

uoor. The R.M. said upon the evidence before him he must give judgment for defendant, with costs, ,G2 iOs. J. WADE V. 11. S. BROWN. This was a claim for ,£ 1 Is 3d,goods. Defendant paid 15s into Court in satisfaction of the demand, and pleaded not indebted as to the remainder. The plaintiff deposed that the amount claimed is now due and owing for iron piping supplied, and that it was a fair and reasonable charge. The R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed. ROBERT BLAKE V. JOHN GIBBONS. This was an action for ill 15s, for commission in negotbiting the sale of a 4 stamper battery to Mr Martinson. The amount charged was at the rate of 5 per cent. The defence was that Mr Collins, to whom the battery belonged was liable, and not Mr Gibbons, that Collins bad paid 5s to settle ti e affair, and this was accepted by plaintiff, who, however, said such was not the case, but that he had borrowed 5s from Mr Collins. In answer to Mr Macdonald, plaintiff said he had sold a hoi k on medicine belonging to Mr Gibbons to Dr Trousseau’s assistant for 14s, and bad kept the money, and that Mr Gibbons had asked him for it in a very insulting manner. John Gibbons, the defendant, said that some conversation did take place at his house about this 4 stamper battery, but that he bad not employed him on commission, but had told him by the way of putting something in his way, as he said he was very badly off, that he might get a chance of making a commission by negotiating the sale of this battery for Mr Collins. Mr Blake afterwards told witness that Mr Collins had refused to give him a commission. Witness purchased a medical hook at Mr Dowdell’s sale which Mr Blake said Dr. Trousseau wanted and would give £l4 for it. Witness never got the money, and when he asked Blake for it the latter said witness owed him a commission. \\ ilness said he had a good mind to give him (Blake) into custody for swindling, or something to that effect. Mr J Perston said he knew the battery. It did not belong to Mr Gibbons who told Mr Blake there was the battery which they had to sell, and that if he could get £4O for it lie would get a commission. The battery was for sale at witness’s auction mart. The battery belonged to Mr Collin’s Mrs Mary Ann Perston, wife of last witness, deposed to a conversation be-

tween Mr Blake and Mr CoTTinS, and that Mr Blake was paid ss, as she understoo 1 to settle the matter. The R.M said defendant had clearly failed to prove any liability on the part of Mr Gibbons, and he must give judgment for defendant with costs. A. HUME V. ROBERT BLAKE. This was a claim for 12s for goods. The defendant filed a set off exceeding the amount claimed for commission for selling a cottage, but did not appear to prove it. The plaintiff denied that he had ever employed the defendant, or owed him any commission. Judgment was given for plaintiff for tho amount claimed and costs.