RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, (before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.)

West Coast Times, Issue 339, 24 October 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, (before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.)

Tuesday, October 23, Drunkenness. — Ge.oi.ge Gun und J"hn Hurtr t way-: res;>ec ively fined for this ofence 55., -or in default, forty-eight hou> s imprisonment. Obstructing a Public Thoroughfare. — James Waller and James Craig were (Alleri upon to answer this charge. One of the defendants stated that he would remove t-«e obstruction, and asked that time miyht be allowed. His Worship would .allow reasonable time, but he must line defendants in the sura of' 10s Foul Chimney. — Donald Ross was charged with this offence, and the same being clearly proved, he was fined 10s. Stealing . Coax. — Edward Cody, William Kout, and another, were charged with stealing coal from the Cafe de France. Mr Home for informant, and Mr Kees for prisoner. Mr Home aske i leave to withdraw the information, as his client, Air Nsiher, did not desire to appear against the men in the dock, for it had since been determined to proceed ngainst Mr Clarke only, by "whose orders the coal' had been removed. *Mr Kees had no objection to oft\;r, and the information was withdrawn! Nuisances. — James Webb was charged with tliis^ offence. The constable being called, deposed that he was on dnjy on the 14ih inst H 1 . 1 fancied that -he smelt something very offensive, and went behind the Shakspeare Hotel. "He there discovered a quantity of night soil above high-water mark. ' Pie made enquiries from people, and learnt that Webb, the defendant, had there deposited the disagreeable stuff. George, Ellis, being sworn, deposed* that he was proprietor of the Sliakspeare<llotel. He was acquainted with the defendant, he knew him by sight. He employed him on the 13th hist, to remove night soil. The defendant did not deny the charge, but stated that the nature of his business was anything but pleasant, and that he frequently went into deep water with the night soil, and thereby endangered his life. His Worship 'could not do other than fine the defendant in the sum of L 2, or, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. Another charge was preferred against Webb of the same natnre, and which was also proved. His [Worship fined him in sum of L 2, or, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment, and, at the same time, remarking that if he cime before him agiiu on a similar charge, he would be dealt with somewhat more severely. CIVIL CASfeS. Lucket v. Maloney. — This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to recover from defendant a certain sum of money, 'alleged to be due us and for wages. The plaintiff clearly proved "his case, and the defendant (Mrs Maloney i, after provoking the risible faculties of the Court, came out with a string of splenetics, when his Worship ordered her to hold her tongue, or he would put her in the lock-up. Judgment was »iven for the pla'ntiff, in the amount claimed and costs., The aggrieved lady then made a speedy exit. Gordon v. Home and Co. — This was an action for recovery of a sum of money, claimed by the plaintiff by reason of his having" supplied certain machinery,- &c, to a jCompany, in which the defendant Home was a shareholder. After the evidence for the plaintiff thad been heard, Mr Harvey, who appeared for the de.fen- . dant, moved for a nonsuit, on the*grounds of the non-joinder of sill the defendants, and the attempt to make a shareholder of a Company registered under the provision* of the " Limited-Liability Act," lhhle for the whole, and that the .proof of the sale nnd delivery \>as not sufficient, as the plaintiff- hid merely a worn to the items generally, and wa? totally unable to particularise them. His Worship would consider the point, but in the meantime would request Mr Harvey to proceed with the defence. The defendant was then called, and denied a.l know'edge of the matter, never having to his knowledge, seen the machinery, &c.. He also deposed that the Company wns registered under the "Limited Liability Act." His Worship would give judgment this morning. Kvans v. Shealar. — This case had been adjourned in or .er that the goods damaged by salt-water, &c, might bo sold, and the defendant saddled with the loss, if any, arising from such. sale. The goo.ls had been sold, and his Worship gave judgment in favor of plaintiff for the balauce, namely,

LS 13s 9d. Jones v. Stapleton. — Claim to recover amount of dishonored, cheque. Juugment for plaintiff, with costs. • Kirby v. Hugljes.and wife.— Mr Button for plaintiff, and Mr Home for defendants. The particulars of demand set forth "That Margaret Hurt was, and Mill is the servant of tliu plaintiff, and the defendant, Elizst Hughes, well knowing the same, wrongfully enticed and procured the said Mm--, garet Hart unlawfully a.;d without the consent, and against the will of the plaintiff, to depart irom the said service of the plaintiff, whereby tho plaintiff has lost the services of the haid Margaret Hart, wberefor the plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the sum of L 12." Mr Button opened the case 'by reading the law 1 on the subject, and then called Margaret Hart, who deposed that she was the sister of the defendant, and that she entered into an agreement with plaintiff in Melbourne, and that shs had been subpoenaed in the present, action. She refused to produce a letter written I)}' her sister lo her, although commanded so to do, alleging as "her excuse that it treated of family matter's. She had signed theagieement produced, and in pursuance thereof she came to Ilokitika. Her sister (the defendant) knew that she had entered into the agieement. When she arrived at Hokitika she immediately proceeded to the Kauieii. »It was the 4th* August when she came to Hokitika She did not make* any complaint while there as to her treatment. She did comp.din of being ill, and of having a swelled knee. Her sitter came a few days after, and saw witness. - The day she (witness) left the plaintiff's house her sis:er was with her. She .went away of her own free will. Mrs Kirby had seen ihe letter that witness had refused to produce. She was now staying with her cousin, a publican at tho Kanieri, until such time as he spited himself with a servant. She j^vcr told plaintiff that ghe was gpjng, to

directly nor, indirectly desired her to leave * Mrs Kirby's house. Witness never ' had any communicating from Mr llug|ieß requesting her /to leave ; she went of 1 her own *"accoid. She wanted to -go on account of her -ore leg, and the late hoius. Mary Klrhy, wife- of the plaintiff, knew Mrs Hughes ; she has told her the hatuie of the agreement she hart made with her sister, and with which she appeared well ulpa«ed. She advanced L' 2to ■ Mrs Hughes in order to get some clothes, as she was the girl's guardian. Margaret Hart urrived here on the 4th August. Witness had seen a letter written by -Mrs Hughes to Margaret Hart, in which it was stated that if- she liked to give lip her present place she (the writer) could get her a better one at, Ross at>a salary'of L 3 per week. On the £th October, witness went to Hokitika, and upon returning 1 , >>he learnt that Margaret Hart, had left- She complained of a sore leg, and witness asked her to go to bed. By Mr Home - Witness'could not swear as to the date of the letter referred to ; she was sure that it was an invitation from her sister (Mrs Hughes) to leave. She had never seen Mrs Hughes till she went to the Kanieri. Rosa Payne,-heing sworn, said that she was in the employ of the \ laintiff. She? knew Margaret Hart. Had seen her in Melbourne. Was engaged at the same time by Mrs Kir by. Also, saw Sirs Hughes there. VVas present -when the agreement was signed. Mrs Hughes borrowed L 2 from Mrs Kir by ; observing that " she hoped Maggie would suit- her." Witness had seen a letter from Mrs Hughes to Maggie' Hart. Witness thought it was about a month before she lift. The letter d- sired Maggie to leave, alleging that she (the writer) could get her a situation at Ross as' barmaid with a salary of L 3 10s per week. When Maggie left, she went with her sister and bid witness good bye. Another young lady, Julia,, asked Mrs H ighes in 1 witness' presence if she was taking 1 Maggie away for good, and she replied that^he was, and she would do so if Mrs Kirby were at home. By Mr Horne — Witness and the other girls> were expected to do general work, und wait in the .bar; but they were expected to dance. The dancing was a.ways over at eleven o'clock, and after that the girls could go to bed/ -Maggie Hart was required to dance, and all other labor that witness and' giris had to do. Witness used to 3it up playing' cards till daylight. The company and card party were composed ol" diggers. She (witness,) danced with any person that asked her. The company generally pluyrd for diinks, and, she was wont to indulge in a glass of wine during the evening. By Mr Button — None of the girls were forced t > remain up past 1 1 o'clock, although expected to push the business If Margaiet ITart lemained up to an urtusual hour it would be for her own pleasure Julia Foibyth was then called and gave corroborative evidence. This closed the plaintiff's cuse x Mr Iljrne then addressed the Bench, dwelling upon the evidence, and pointing out the 'absence of an}' Covenant rendering dancing obligatory, and submitting that the manner in which the house was c6nducted, the temptation to which the yrung girl was exposed, the ,class of 3ociety she w.ts obliged to mingle with, and the total absence of .anything like* separate apartments,, naturally made her elder sister, a married woman, very anxious concerning hersister/9 welfare, and that as the plaintiff had not f.iirly disclosed the naturo of the duties expected at I the hands of Margaret Hart, she (the plaintiff) must, take and be bound l),y the consequence of her own act. lie would leave the matter in the hands of his Worship, and call Mrs s Hughes — who, being sworn, deposed that Margaret ILirt was her j'oungest sister, and would be seventeen years' of age next birthday ; t?lie had i>een to see her sister at the Kani; ri, where she found her very ill with a sore knee. She was aware that her sister was dancing to two or three o'clock in the morning. When she left -Melbourne her hister had not started for the v\ cst Coast. Witness was here first. Her sister looked so very ill when witness saw her that she considered a change of air absolutely necessary ? and therefore removed' her. By Mr Bu'ton— Witness had written a letter to her bister, but declined disclosing the contents. Margaret Hart, recalled by Mr Home, deposed that the late hours dkl wot agree with her ; she had been up sometimes till six o'clock on Sunday morning, dancing »nd playing card.s. By Mr Button—Witness had never complained to Mrs Kirby about card playing ■and late hours. All the giris used to sit up late, and play fty- drinks. This closed the cisc, whereupon Mr Home addressed the Court upon the ( vidence, as did also Mr Button. His \Vor3hip in giving judgment, laid that he quite approved ef what Mr Button had said, and he would th-re-fore give a verdict \for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. *

Norman v. Nankins. — Amount of an I O U. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default, for amount claimed, and cots.

Betts & Sheppard v. Barnard. — This was a claim for goods sojd and delivered. No* appearance ot defendant. Judgment by default. *

Boylan & Cullen v. Green. — No appenranee of defendant. Judgment by default. The following cases were dismissed, owing 'to the non-appearance of plaintiffs or defendants : — Ryan v. Cameron, Wade v. Griffin, Ardloy v. Griffiths, Spence v. Cameron, Al"ir & Staite v. Shealer, Eldon & Miller v. Weir.