RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 277, 13 August 1866, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald.Esq., R.M., and W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Saturday, August 11. Drunk and Incapable. — Daniel Diiscoll was fined ss, or in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment with hard labor. Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct.—George Hawkshaw was fined 5s and 15s respectively, or in default fortyeight hours' imprisonment with hard labor. A further charge of resisting the police was brought against Hawkesshaw, which was dismissed, and the prisoner cautioned against interfering with the police. Lunacy. — Joseph Barnard, John Sproule, and Hairy O'Donough, charged with being of unsound mind, were severally committed to the Lunatic Asylum, Christchurch, on the medical evidence of Drs. Ryley and Derraot. Conspiracy to Murder. — William De Lacy, on remand from the 3rd instant, was further remanded until the 20th instant, at the request of the police. WiLruii Murder — James Wilson, alias Murray, on remand from the 3rd instant, was also remanded until the 20th instant, at the request of the police. Larouny trom a Dwelling. — Stephen Parker, on remand from the 3rd instant, was further remanded until the 13th instant. Assault. — Denis Dooley, charged by John Rafferty with assaulting him on the evening of Thursday, the -2nd instant, was fined Ll and costs. CIVIL CASES. Nathan v. O'Domiell. — In this case, which was heard on Friday, judgment was given for plaintiff for L 5, each side {o pay its own costs. » Rickets v. Mitchell. — Adjourned till August 13th. Georgina Clarke and Elizabeth Skeldou v. George Dodd. — These were two separate cases ; but being similar, one hung upon the decision of tho other, consequently the Magistrate gave judgment in both, after hearing one of them. Georgina Clarke and Elizabeth Skeldon v. Gergc Dodd. — Mr Button for plaintiffs, Mr South for defendant. The plaintiffs in this action sought to recover the sum of L 142 10s, being damages for breach of agreement of hire and service, and unlawful detention of wearing apparel. Dodd had hired the plaintiffs in Melbourne, as barmaids. In due course they arrived at his house, and were asked to dance ; one of them could not, and the other, rather than displease, complied, with fhe request — but in the morning both declined to dance in future. The alternative of washing was next offered to them. This remedy being as bad as the evil, they also declined, and as two friends happened to ! come in at the time to see how they were getting eta, they told them their story ,' and left the house altogether. This was the story of the plaintiffs. — Mr and Mrs Dodd's evidence went to prove that they had not been asked to do more than assist generally in the house ; that they had never been asked to dance ; and that they left of their own accord. Mr South and Mr Button argued the pros and cons minutely — the one contending that there had been no breach of agreement ; the other showing that the girls had been requested to do things for which they never had engaged. The Magistrates coincided with the latter view, and gave judgment for L3O, coats 38s ; and counsels fee L 5 ss. The clothes to be delivered up by the 14th instant, ox ' the respective value of them — namely, L 35 and LlO, to be paid by the defendant. (Mr Dodd thought proper to remark that "it was a robbery," and was, in consequence, ordered to be locked up for "twenty-four hours. On apologising, however, he was allowed to be set frte, both the Magistrates giving him a lecture on his insubordinate conduct.) J. H. Horn and wife v. Margaret Mills. An action for Ll9, lent by plaintiff's wife ; for twelve weeks' wages due to Mrs Horn, as barmaid, in Otago, L 36 ; and balance of wagds, L 2 ;in all, £57. Mr liees appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr South for the defendant. Plaintiff's wife being sworn, state.d'that she went to defendant in March or April, 18G5, at Queenstown, Otago, and lent defendant Ll9. She afterwards acted as barmaid to defendant, under agreement, and there was a balance of wages due her as defendant's barmaid in Greymouth, in March last. On cross-ex-amination by Mr South, plaintiff stated that the money was lent by her to defendant, in Ll notes. Witness swore that she did not, when she first met with defendant, beg her to take her to Maori Point, because she had run away from her mother, and was afraid to return on account of her bad conduct. Defendant had never clothed her. Did not know a woman called Jessie M'Leod. Declined to answer whether she had, whilst with defendant and Jessie M'Leod, been guilty of immoral practises with men. Plaintiffs' case here closed. MrSouth, for defendant, said that he would have given twice the fees in the case out of his pocket rather than it should have come on ; but as the' plaintiff had dragged defendant into Court, and risked trying it, he had a duty to perform to his client, and intended doing it. He called Mrs Mills, who, being sworn, stated that she met with Mary Jones (now Mrs Horn) in Queenstown, about March, 1865. She told witness she had run away from her mother, and was afraid to go back? Witness took her in and clothed her. She had no clothes or money, and came in her riding habit. In coming over to the West Coast witness took her with her to Dunedin, and kept her there three weeks. Engaged her there as barmaid, paid her passage over here, and on their arrival found lodging for her. Instead of remaining until witness purchased an hotel plaintiff's wife left without witness' knowledge or consent to live with Jessie M'Leod. She then considered the engagement to be over. Mr South, in closing defendant's case, remarked that it was one that ought not to have been brought there ; but as it had, Jie was bound to protect his client, .against whom he hoped he had shown there was no case whatever — the contract was void. Mr Rees observed that he did not put dirty questions to his client, as his learned friend had. A rebuke upon this was elicited from the Bench, and Mr South observed that if Mr Rees was as careful to avoid all dirty things as he (Mr S«uth) was, it would bo well, and asked Mr Rees if he was prepared to make a similar statement outside, the * Court. Mr Rees contended that his clients were entitled to recover. The Magistrates, without hesitation, gave judgment for defendants, with costs.