RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S

West Coast Times, Issue 136, 24 February 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S

COURT. Fmday, 23rd Fed. ' (Before G. G. FitzGernld, Esq, R.M.) OnBATiNG- A Disturbance— Robert Bosh was ohargod with creating a disturbance calculated to proyoko a breach oi the peaco. Sergoant Dixon said that bo saw tho prisonor acting in a very disorderly manner on board tho Ballarafc yesterday, and told him to go ashoro, when pri3;mor said ho would not go, and hoped the people woxild tear tho Ballarat to pieces as it was not going to Okarita. Prisoner was half drunk at tho timo and tried to inuito others to make a disturbance. — Konnody said that ho had seen tho prisoner in a vory oxoited manner haranguing a crowd of people aboard tho Ballarat, and saw him with a stono in his hand as if ho intended to throw it. Saw Sergeant Dixon tako a stono out of prisoner's hand and try to pacify him, but prisonor continued to swear and bo disorderly. Tho acousod said ho had been in tho crowd at tho Ballarat on Thursday and aoted like tho others, but did not do any harm. Fined £2, or /our days' imprisonment. Exposure. — John Ogdon, for committing this offonco on tho beach, was fined £2. Ab*avvs — W. Prichard was summoned for assaulting and boating Mark Dias. TJiq complainant said that on passing tho back of defendant's house, dofondant -rushed out and said that ho had promised when ho caught complainant that ho would punch his head, and now ho had tho clianco he would do so. Defendant then caught hold of him with ono hand and struck him v illi the othor until complainant called out for assistance several times. Crossexamined by defendant- Complainant's house was close to the fence enclosing Prichard and Galloway's section. Was inside this fence when defendant struck him. Had not been told not to go inside of it. 0. Myers said, that on Tuesday lust he saw Mr Priobard try to put complainant oft' his ground, and then strike him, when complainant called out for help. Defendant stated that he had merely taken hold of complainant's wrist,and tried to put him on tho other side, of the fence. Complainant then struck him and defendant returned the blow , His Worship would doubtless agree with" defendant, that he had a right to put a trespasser oft' his premises, tie was sure that complainant struck tho first blow. The Mngistra'esaid, that unnecessary violence had been committed by defendant. Fined £1. / CIVIL OASES. Do Costa v. Lyons and Prince. — Caso dismissed. Cassius and Co. v. Pattorson and Millo"r. — Mi*. Oakos for cWondants. His Worship remarked that tho dofendants woroin gaol. Caso dismissod withoutcosts. Co/ons v. Flowov and Co. — An 'action on an I. O. XT. for £25 18s. Judgment by default. Costs, Bs, Hutton and Co. v. O'Donnoll. — Mr Oakos appeared for defendant. H. Kennedy said that ho was defendant's partner. Tho' books produced would show tho wholo tronaction, which was tho salo of somo coffco consigned to Evans, and handed ovor to defendant. Evans did not disoloso his principal when th.o coffee was put into defendant's hands. Tho Magistrate said that ho should nonsuit tho plaintiffs, as tho action should havo boon brought by Evans. Costs, 25s. } professional costs, £5 ss. v Solomon v, Kofahl. — An action to recover £22 11a 7d, for goods sold and delivered. Mr Campboll appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr Oalccs for tho dofondant. Plaintiff said that ho hud supplied plaintiff with all thd goods mentioned in. bill of particulars, oxcopting thirty-thrco tins of coffee. Ho had stayed for a week at dofondant's houso, but what ho had thoro ho paid for. Henry JofFs said that ho hud heard plaintiff ask dofondant's wilb if ho owed hor anything, about ton days ago, whon she roplied in tho negative. Mrs Kofahl doposed that plaintiff asked hor, about oight days ago, if ho owed hor anything, and sho roplicd that sho did not think ho did, but said ho hud bettor apply to hor hiuband for information on tho subject, as ho k'pt tho accounts. — By Mr Oakos : Plaintiff was in tho houso about ft week. Witness's husband paid him £6 on account of somo gco Is that woro purchased in Hokitika.— By Mr Campboll : Tho £6 wero paid about flvo wooks agd — Homy '.Kofahl deposod th it ho lived afc Totara. Plaintiff had stayed in his houso for a week, for whioh he was charged £4 15s, tho usual amount lor a week's board and lodging. Paid plaintiff on account £5 personally — '£8 through Mr . Molody, and sont him £4' 3s, for which witnoss had a receipt. By Mr Campbell — Witness had nevor purohusod any moat from plaintiff as charged, but | plaintiff had brought some meat to him to ■ pickle, whioh was roturrcd to plaintiff about twolvo doyß aftorwards. Laid tho moat on a scat iv plaintiff's house. If Mrs Kofuhl had evor promised to purohaso it ho was not awaro of tho fact. Paid tho £5 to plaintiff iv tho prosonco of his (witness's) wifo. Witness ob« tainod a publican's liconso last week for tho first time. Mr Campboll in addrossing tho Bonoh said tho 'defendant had kopt a rosttvurunt and 1 grog shop, and to obtain tho amount for liquor sold lo plaintiff, dofondant had charged it us board and lodging. Plaintiff had proved that ho had but one meal in defendant's house, and that he paid for. It was strange that no bill of this sum of L 4 16s had bcon rendered, until plaintiff was served with a summons. Thero was no doubt that tho meat had been sold to defendant's wife, and now ' they wished to elude payment. Judgment for plaintiff for amount paid into Court (£3 l3s 7d). Plaintiff to pay costs, 26s 5 and L 8 3s for professional costs. Itoonoy and Others v Griffiths.— Mr Oakes appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Maogregor for the defendant. Mr'Macgregor on an affidavit made by defendant, that he had been compelled to go to Nelson on business of importance and to meet his wife, made 1 an application for an adjournment. Mr Oakes objected on the ground that tho dofondant thought it of moro importance to attend to bqsmeea in Nelson and take «n 0! Mrs Qri/fiths, than to fu»wrthl« lumtoPM, Mm} hMhoM f»k« tot oouwfwwt

of his choice. Francis Roonoy, Mauagor of the Kanieri Steara Drainage Company, said that if the case was postponed the company ' would he losers of botb time and money, and he did not know of any special reason to deter the dofendaut from attending. His Worship said that if the case terminated favourably to plaintiffs' then the costs of adjournment would be taken into considemtion. Adjourned till tho Bth o£ March. Ellis v) Throckmorfcon — Mr Oakes for plaintiff, Mr Macgregor for defendant MrMftogregor applied for an adjournment until the Ist of March,, as MrLahman, the principal witness on behalf of defendant, hnd beon obliged to return to the Grey to look after Messrs Lyons and Prince. Mr Oakes opposed, ay Mr Lahman, Mr Throokmorton'a managing man at tho Grey, had beep in Hokitika on Wednesday last, aud might have stopped had he chosen to do so. and his client and a witness had come down from the Grey at a great expense especially to attend the Court. His Worship said thai everything would be taken into consideration when the case was heard.— Adjourned till the Ist March. South v. Marks, Jenkins v. Davis, Montgomery v. Dick, Angus v. Keller and Co,, Same v. Keller, Anguß v. Wildridge, Weymouth v. Luhning.— Theie was no appearanoe in any of these casos. The Court adjourned x till eleven o'clock this morning. ' ■ ♦