RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 134, 1 September 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L Simpson, Esq., R. M.) Thursday, Aug. 25. Dr. Ilalley v. T. Quirk.— Claim, £4. Settled out of Court. J. Ilarrop v. T. Quirk.— Claim, £o\ Verdict for amount with costs. Monday, Aug. 29. (Before the same Magistaate.) James Keppel v. T. Bowes and D. M'Luskey. Claim, £11. Mr. Gooday appeared for plaintiff. The defendants had a set-off against the above claim. A considerable time was taken up in unravelling the accounts, but withoiit any satisfactory results. . The Bench, remarked that the acconnt produced was a very unsatisfactory one, and the evidence of the defendants was also unsatisfactory. The case was adjourned for one week to enable the defendants to produce more satisfactory accounts — adjournment to be at the cost of defendants. W. Bailey v. J. Tuckey. — Claim, £1. The defendant lodged a set-off of 2'2s. It appeared from the evidence that Humphrey and Co. (Bailey being one of the partners) were indebted to the defendant for carting timber to the value of 225. Subsequently he gave Humphrey and Co. an order for a wheelbarrow. This wheelbarrow was made by Bailey, and Bailey sued for the amount. It came out in the evidence that the partnership was dissolved in February last ; that notice of dissolution had never been published, and that the sign above the premises was still Humphrey and Co. The Magistrate remarked that the action should have been brought in the name of Humphrey and Co. The defendant and the outside world had no knowledge of the dissolution. Under the chcumstancea the plaintiff accepted a nonsuit. Tuesday, Aug. 30. (Before the same Magistrate.) Chi Que and Ah Chon were charged, on the information of Thomas Leonard, that on Monday, the 29 th August, they did violently assault and beat the said Thomas Leonard by knocking him down and otherwise abusing him. Mr, Gooday appeared for the accused. It appeared from the evidence that on the day named Leonard went from his claim to turn the water on. After he did so, when on his way back, he saw the Chinamea going to the place where he had turned the water on and remove the stones he had placed in the creek. Leonard put the stones it: again, and the Chinamen again removed them. This took place two or three times Ultimately one of the Chinamen struck Leonard a blow on the nose, which caused blood to flow. At this stage they grappled with each other, and they both tumbled on the ground, the Chinaman undermost By some means or other the fingers cf Leonard got into the mouth of the Chiri.iman, where he was held fast, and could not get away, whilst the second Chinaman wan belabouring him with a shovel. They got separated, and Leonard, thinking discretion better than valor, made oft. Be was followed by the Chinaman, who was striking him with a piece of board. Leonard again turned, and again grappled with the Chinaman, when again the same scene was enacted, the Chinaman getting a firm hold of Leonard's thumb, which he held like grim death, causing no little pain. They were in this interesting position until a miner of the name oi Evans got them separated. Evans, who saw only part of the affray, corroborated the evidence of Leonard. A Chinaman was called for the defeuco His evidence waa of little account, as h-. did not see the beginning of the row, me he was at a considerable distance froi». the scene of action. Mr. Gooday addressed the Bench or. behalf of the accused. The Bench having summed up, foun i the accused in 40s and costs, in defau't of payment, 14 days in goal.