RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 626, 26 September 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.lt.) Wednesday, September 25. Bbeach of the Peace, — Sarah Miller, for this offence, was fined Ll, with the usual alternative.

Lunacy. — Jane Miller, alias Patterson, on remand from the 23rd inst., was discharged on the medical .evidence of Drs. Beswick and Ryley.

CIVIL CASES. Jacobs v. Kennedy. — Adjourned till 26th inst. in order to enable defendant to subpoena witnesses. Luckless v. AgneAV. — Mr Harvey for the defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the sum of L 4 15s, being L 3 15s for taking down and re-erecting a house, and piles supplied, and LI for selecting a site for the house. The plaintiff stated that he had suppliedthe piles in question, and done the work charged for (as per agreement). He had also selected the site upon which the defendant's house now stood. The defendant admitted having -promised to pay the Ll for selecting a site for his house, and a further sum of L 2 for erecting it. He (defendant) undertook to supply ' plaintiff with assistance (two men for two days) and to pay for the cartage of his cottage from the beach to the site selected by the plaintiff. The house had been put up on the section selected by the plaintiff, which defendant had since ascertained was a reserve. He had received notice to remove his building, and he was, in consequence of the plaintiff's neglect, in the same if not a worse position than before. Tiie judgment was given for the defendant, with costs. M'lCenna v. Couliffe. — A claim for L 3 13s for goods supplied. The plaintiff stated the goods had been ordered by a person named Stapleton. He delivered the goods to the defendant, supposing her to be Mrs Stapleton. A few days afterwards he called at defendant's house, whore lie met Stapleton, who on being asked to pay for the fgoods. refused to. Tho defendant had paid plaintiff Ll on account. Cross-examined by the defendant — Stapleton told plaintiff to take them to defendant's shop, plaintiff had been there before. Witness did not tell defendant Stapleton had bought the " goods, and had ordered them to be left at the defendant's store. The defendant on being sworn, deposed — that she never ordered the goods, nor had she authorised Stapleton to order them on her account. She received them 'from the plaintiff on account of Stapleton, at his request she had since sold a part of them, and had accounted to him for the money. The witness admitted having paid the plaintiff Ll, 'but it was at Stapleton's request and in his presence. His worship gave a judgment for the defendant. Heuiz v. Luigh. — For goods supplied. Judgment for L4 l6s, with costs. M'Gaiu v. Booth — For board and lodging a claim for L 5. The debt was not disputed. Defendant asked to be allowed time, as he was not in a proper position at the present time to pay the debt. Judgement was given for L 5, with costs. The amount to be paid by weekly instalments of lOs each. ( Every Monday.) Burke v. Morrison and. Koss. — Plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant < the sum of Ll paid by him for carting from his section four loads of rubbish S laced there by defendant's man. Defenant denied that the ground upon which the rubbish had been put was part of plaintiff's section. His worship adjourned the case until the 2nd of October, in order that the evidence of the surveyor might be taken, as to whether it was part of plaintiff's section or not. Mcc and Markov. Stewart. — A claim for L 7 10s, for rent of a shop in Revell street. The debt was admitted, and defendant applied that time might be allowed him. His Worship declined to make any order and gave judgment for the amount claimed.

Mace and Dison v. Fitzshninons. — This case was adjourned till the 2nd October, to allow plaintiff to furnish a proper bill of particulars. JCirwan v. Febue. — Plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant the sum of L 3 Is, for beer and spirits (principally half-bottles of gin). The defendant did not appear. His "Worship stated that as the liquor had been supplied in less quantities than a pound's worth at one time he would not give a judgment till he had had an opportunity of ascertaining whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover. His Worship adjourned the case till the following day. The Court, was adjourned till 11 o'clock next day.