RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 181, 18 April 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

I (Before G. G. FitzGerald, R.M.) Tuesday, A run, 17. Information Demanding Sureties of tub Police. — James E. Kennedy was charged by his wife, Mary Kennedy, with assaulting her on the 12th instant. Mrs Kennedy stated that her husband, who is a cook at the hospital, was in the habit of ill-treating her when he came home at night. The defendant said that ge did not assault his wife on the night in question, but that she had struck him in the face when his back was turned, and he had retaliated by giving her a " back-bander." The Magistrate refused to order the defendant to find sureties, and recommended the plaintiff to go and live with her husband at the hospital. Illegal Occupation o* a Section. — Mrs Avel was summoned by Thomas Homan for being on section No. 1425, without having any right or title to it. It appeared that the house had changed hands since Mrs Avel took possession of it. The defendant stated she was not aware tht houifr and Untl had bow told, but »h» j

was prepared to pay a fair rent for it. The plaintiff produced his license to occupy, and stated that he had bought the houae from a Mr Fane. The Resident Magistrate here stated he would adjourn the case until Friday, the 20th instant, as it was necessary that there should be* two other Magistrates oil the Bench before any* order could be made. civil cases. Cassiua and Co. v. White.— The plaintiffs sought to recover the sum of £5 15s, the value of a half-chest of tea. It appeared that the "defendant had bought a quantity of goods from Messrs Comiskey, amongst which was the half-chest of tea now in dispute. The defendant called on plaintiffs and returned the tea, stating that it waa unsaleable. Mr Cassius refused to take it back as the case was destroyed add of no use to him in that condition. By defendant — The price given for the tea was not the price of a first-class article. Mr Cassius' storehian waa next called and corroborated the plaintiff's statement as to the condition of tho chest when it waa returned, and Baid that it was perfectly sound and in good order when it left the store. For the defence it was urged that the chest was unsound when it was taken away from the store. The Magistrate gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs 11s, remarking that the defendant should not have taken the case, out of plaintiff's store if ho was not satisfied with its condition. , M'Guire and Lynch v. Lawrence — For goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for the amount claimed £8 12s, and costs ss. Berndt v. Walla — For professional services. Judgment by default for £5 ss, and costs 7s. Singer v. Griffiths.— Judgment by default for £7 14s (the amount of a disnonored 1.0. U.) with costs 7s. Solomon v. Solomon.— This was an •ction for £2 14a 6d, for board and lodging and money lent. Defendant admitted plaintiff's claim for the board and lodging, but denied having borrowed money from him. Judgment was given for JC2 10s, with costs, 7s. Hale v. Kennedy.— The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £5 5s the amount of an 1.0. U. The defendant stated that he had that morning been served with the summons, and requested an adjournment to allow him time to file a set-off. The case was accordingly adjourned until Friday the 20th inst. Pennefather v. Smith.— The plaintiff, in his capacity of chairman of an Improvement Committee, sued to recover the sum of £8 78 2d, which amount, it was stated, defendant's wife had promised to contribute towards the forming of the footpath in Revell-street. Plaintiff said he and other members of the Committee had gone round for subscriptions to those whose houses were fronting that part of the •treet where the footpath was to be formed, and that, in the absence of her husband, defendant's wife put her name on the list for the amount now sued for. When* the footpath was finished, defendant wa9 called upon to fulfil the promise and pay the money. This his wife refused to do, Mr Smith being absent on this occasion also. Mr Thorn, draper, said he saw defendant's wife put her name down on the list. Defendant said his wife did not sign the paper, and asked that the case be postponed to allow him to produce the person who did sign the paper. The Magistrate gave judgment for defendant, with costs (7s), it being fully proved that Mrs Smith did not sign the paper. Pennefather v. Veith.— This was a similar case. Mr Oakes,'on behalf of the defendant, applied for a non-suit, contending that, aa the Improvement Committee in question was not an incorporated body, its chairman, had no power to sue. The Magistrate treated this case as the one before it, giving judgment for defendant with 7s costs. In the cases of Moran v. Smith, Shaw v. Rich, Slater v. Fitzsiramons, there was no appearance of plaintiff's or defendants. The Court then adjourned until this day at eleven o'clock, a.m. The following list of civil cases is set down for hearing this day ;—; — Godfrey v. Laing, Harnett and Co. v. Solomon, Silk v. Lewis, Dickaon v. Dick, Rimraer v. Ryan, same v. Camelford, Callaghan v. Driscoll, Campbell and Linton v. M'Allister, Bayle v. Mackie, Superintendent of Canterbury v. Harnett and Co., ;M'Mahon v. Benjamin, Phillips v. Thomson, Myattv. Throckmorton, Houghton v. E. Leotard, same v. G. same, same v. F, same, same v. E. same.