RESIDENT MAGISTRATE?

West Coast Times, Issue 135, 22 February 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE ?

COURT. Wednesday, 21st Fbpruabi. (Beforo G. G. FitzGorald, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Donald M'Boan, for this charge, was fined 10s., or twonty-four hours' imprisonment.

Lunacy.— Daniol Coonoy was brought up on roinand, chargod with boing a luuatic. Dr. Rylcy said ho had again oxamincd Cooney and found that ho was sensible, and would rccommond his discharge. Dr. Berndt stated that lie had oxaminod tho prisonor, who wob now quilo rational and fit to bo reloaßcd. Ho suggosted that an admonition against drinking to oxoobb in futuro, if given by tho Bonoh to Coonoy, might havo a bon'efioial olioet. His Worship ordorod tho prisoner's discharge. Civil Oases.

Caßsiuß und Co. v. Rowo. — An notion for £4t 9b. (id., for goods sold and deliverod. Judgment by dofault for tho amount claimed. Costs, ss.

Bladierr. Bonnor. — An notion to rcoovor tho sum of £15 7s. Gd., for board, money lont, and rofreßhmonts. Jamcß Bladior, tho plaintiff, 6aid tho defendant had boarded at his hotol, tho Cafo National, for threo weeks and a half, for winch ho charged at tho ralo of £2 2s. a wcok. Tho balanco of tho amount claimed was for monoy lent and refreshments Tho dofondant said that ho disputed tho claim for refreshments, as it was exorbitant. By tho Bench : Witnoss could not havo had so many drinks as wero chorgod to him. Ho had had a great many drinks, sometimes beor and somotimes brandy, bufc chiefly tho latter. Tho Magistrate said that tho claim for brandy could not bo allowod, tho beer alono could be chargod ; and ns neither plaintiff nor dofondant know tho oxact quantity of each supplied to the defendant, ho thought the fairest way would bo to halvo it, and should therefore give judgment for J612 45., and costs 16s. Byrno v. Worrall. — An action to recover £6 11s., balanco of account duo for board and lodging. Judgmont by dofault. Prichard and Galloway v. Smith.— An action to recover L 7 9s 2d for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff Priohard said that the 7 goods had been supplied to a Mr Miller, ou defendant's writton Order. Mr Galloway deposed, that he had rendered an account of the goods on two occasions, and said that defendant had promised to pay when he first presented it. The written order from tho defendant desired plaintiffs- to deliver to Mr Miller, whatever goods be required for the Theatre. This order could not now be found. T. B. Smith said that he had never given Miller an order to get goods from, tho plaintiffs, and if Miller had obtained any goods from them, it was on his own responsibility, k His Worship remarked that plaintiffs had sworn that su' h an order had beon given, and it was possible for tho defendant to have given an order and afterwards to forget the oiroumstance. Judgment for tbe amount claimed and 11s costs. ( Callaway v. Betteß— A claim for L 3 7s6d balanco of account for splitting wood. Plaintiff said that he and another roan had supplied tho defendant with wood to tho amount of L 6 16s, that \\h mate in the transaction had been paid L 3 7s 6d by the plaintiff as his share, but because thore was a contra account amounting to L 3 due to the defendant by plaintiff and another man, tho defendant had refused to pay more than a balance of 7s Gd, thus deducting tho full amount of uooouut, whon plaintiff was liable for a half of it only. The defendant said that as tliore was an account of L 3 for bread against the plaintiff and a man who was living in the same tent, he hud deducted the amount of his bill/ and offered the plaintiff the balauce due, namely. 7s Gel, which had been paid into court. Judgment for 7s Gd ; plaintiff to pay 4s costs. Griffin v. Gonnor— An action to recover L 7 amount of rent' and value of some firewood. Plaintiff said that defendant bad rented a cottage from him on the Bth of last month, and tho agrcernnnt was that the rent for the first month should bo L 3, to be paid in advance. Defendant had paid but LI on account, and on being asked by the plaintiff if ho would ocoupy the cofcago for another month, replied in the affirmative, agreeing to pay at the rate of LI n week monthly in advance. Defendant had also used a heap of firewood that was at tho back of tho house, and for this the plaintiff claimed LI. The defendant stated that he did not dispute the L 3 due for rent, but thought that LI for the wood was an out-of-the-way prico. His Worship said thai the plaintiff could not recover for tbe second month's rent until that month was comploted. Judgment for L 3 and lls. costs. Giilfin v. Erskine. — An action for L 5 9n, balance of account for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff said that he had supplied the defendant with paints and driers, and had paid an incount of L 6 for glass for him to Mr. Burfc. I imuel Burt said that ho was a merchant, and had delivered a box of glass to tho defendant upon the plaintiff 's guarantee to pay for it. He had afterwards rendered an account of L 6 for the glass, and received payment from the plaintiff. Tho defendant said that tho plaintiff oharged him L 7 Is for the glass, and he thought LI Is commission for paying an account of L 6 too much. He had offered to allow Cs for commission, but this tho plaintiff had refused. Judg> nient for LI 9s, and costs LI 17s.

Rossiter and Co. v. Israel and Baker. — An action to recover the sura of L 6 for advertising and printing. Judgment by default ; costs, 4a.

Brown & Co. v. M'Cormack & Co. —A claim of L27s 6d for printing and advertising. Judgment by default ; costs, 2s.

There wero tluco cases in whioh neither plaintiffs nor defendants put in an appearance; The court then adjourned till 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.