RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 637, 9 October 1867, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

<% G. G. Fitzgerald, Esq., E.M.) Mo~ND.IT, OcTOBEEj 7. CITHi CASES. Louisson v. Oakes, master of the Flying Cloud. — Tliis was an action brought to recover the sum of L 35 14s 2d, being the difference in value of 121 bags of oats shipped in the Flying Cloud, and the price the oats realised when sold in a damaged state on the Hokitika wharf. The action was undefended. Judgment by default for the amount claimed with costs. Dodd v. Carmody. — The plaintiff (landlady of the Shotover Hotel) sued the defendant for damages for breach of agreement on the part of the defendant to serve the plaintiff, and for money paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant, and at her request. For damages for breach of agreement, I/? 0. Said passage from Melbourne to Hokitika, Lo. Mr South for the plaintiff; Mr Harvey for the de- | fondant. Mrs Dodd, in answer to a ques- j tion put by the Court, stated that she had obtained an order under the " Married Women's Property Protection Act, 1866." The defendant admitted being indebted to the plaintiff to the amount of L 5, her passage money from Melbourne to Hokitika. The plaintiff produced two agreements the one dated ■ the 31st August, 1867 ; the other, the sth September, 1867. The agreements stated that the defendant was to serye the plaintiff " in the capacity of general useful and dance" for six months at a salary of L 5 per month. Across the acjreemcnt, dated 31st August, was written " Time to begin from arrival in Hokitika," and across the other " Should employee leave before expiry of agreement, wages to be forfeited. The plaintiff stated that the defendant with two other young women came over with her from Melbourne. Immediately on landing the defendant left her. Slie was away about an hour and a-half. The witness and another person went over to the Post Office Hotel to have a glass of wine, and raw the defendant there. Witness heard her ask Mrs Hansen for a situation. She came to witness house tliat evening accompanied by two men. They were all tipsy. The defendant refused to remain in the house and left immediately. She has been employed at the Post Office Hotel ever since. Cross-examined by Mr Harvey — Both agreements were made in Melbourne — one to apply to Melbourne, the other to Hokitika — (Mr Harvey here" asked the plaintiff's counsel on which agreement lie proposed to rest his case. Mr South replied that he proposed to go upon both.) — The defendant said she liked to be in a dancing-room. Witness did not tell the defendant she would have to sleep in the same room as the fiddler. Witness's -daughter dances. • Two agreements were drawn up because one was not large enough. Witness keeps a respectable house. Her husband is alive Ec-examined by Mr South— The other two giiis sleep in a room off the kitchen — Hannah Sullivan deposed that she came from Melbourne with Mrs Dodd. She has resided at Mrs Dodd's house ever since. She is satisfied with her house. Examined by Mr Harvey — Witness found her situation the same as the plaintiff had represented it to be. The dancing room is frequented by the working class. .Some women came in once but Mrs Dodd turned them out. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Harvey moved for a non-suit on two grounds ; that the plaintiff being a married woman could not sue, and that no damage had been proved. As to the first objection, his Worship read a portion of section VII. of the " Married Women's Property Protection Act," under which an order had been mn de in favor of the plaintiff (order produced). The first part of section VII. states that " in every case in which a wife shall have obtained such order as aforesaid, she shall, until the same shall be reversed, or discharged as aforesaid, be considered a feme sole for the purpose of contracts, moneys, and injuries, owing and being owed in any civil proceedings." With reference to the second ground, his Worship remarked that the .defendant admitted, being indebted for her passage money, which formed part of the bill of particulars. His Worship refused the non-suit points. Mr Harvey called the defendant, Kate Cormody, who.on being sworn, deposed that she had engaged with Mrs Dodd, in Melbourne. The plaintiff informed her that she had a respectable hotel, and that she (defendant) would be engaged in the bar. There would be a little dancing on a Saturday night. Defendant told her she could not dance. When they landed in Hokitika the plaintiff requested the witness to go over to the Post Office Hotel, and tell the other girls to come and look after her luggage. Witness, on that occasion, did not pee Mrs Hansen. She denied tbat she was under the influence of fcliquor when she went to the plaintiff's house. She declined to remain there, and offered to re-pay plaintiff the passage-money, but Mrs Dodd refused to take it. The room she showed hor for her sleeping apartment was not fit for" any respectable female. The plaintiff took her into a room with a number of bunks in it, and told her she might occupy one of the bunks. Defendant noticed a blue blanket in one of them, and asked the plaintiff who slept there, she replied, that the fiddler slept in that bunk. She also showed witness another room oft the kitchen, but she declined to remain in the house. Cross-examined by Mr bouth— Witness did not say that she would sleep in either of the bedrooms. Mrs Hansen was called, and stated that she remembered the day upon which the defendant landed. In the evening witness' sister-in-law brought the defendant down to see her. She asked the witness for' a situation. Defendant told witness she was engaged to Mrs Dodd, but she would not go there. She said she wanted a comfortable home ; she did not caro so much about the wages. — Cross-examined by Mr South — Witness never wrote to the defendant. She did not see Mrs Dodd on the morning of her arrival. She was in bed. This closed defendant's case. — His Worship remarked, that one essential part of plaintiff's was wanting — the proof of damages. It had not been shown that the plaintiff had suffered any damages — no damage had been proved. As to the character of the plaintiff's house his VV orship Lad nothing- to say. The defendant appeared to be a respectable person. Judgment was given for the amount of the passage money (L 5), and costs, 17s. The Court was adjourned till eleven g'oloek ne># day, *