RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 650, 24 October 1867, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. Fitzgerald, Esq., R.M.) Wednesday, Oct. 23. Dbttnk and Incapable. — Alexander Johnson was fined 10s, with the usual alternative. Lunacy. — Margaret Dooley (who was too ill to appear in court) was charged with being of unsound mind, and was remanded till the 25th inst. for medical examination by Drs Beswiek and Ryley. CIVIL CASES. Boyle and Co. v. Royse, Mudie and Co. — In this case his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff's, for the amount claimed— Llß 10s. " Regan v. Livingstone. — Plaintiff Sought to recover from the defendant the sum of L 2 for six days board. Judgment for the amount claimed. Harriet Dodd v. Isabella Smith. — Mi* Reesforthe plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed to recover the sum of Ll6 13s, made up as follows : — To money lent for passage from Melbourne to Hokitika, L 6 3s. To one week's board and residence, from October Bth to October 15th, LI. To half wages paid to Marian Collier to do your work from October 10th to October loth, LI. To damages sustained by plaintiff by your non-fulfilling your engagement from October Bth to October 15th, one week, L7 los. The plaintiff had brought a similar action against Hannah Sullivan, and by consent both cases were tried together. — Mrs Dodd was called, and deposed that she kept the Shotover Hotel, Eevell street. She had obtained an order under the " Married Womans' Property Protection Act, 1860." The witness hired the defendant's in Melbourne. (Agreement produced.) They undertook to serve the plaintiff as general servants and to dance, for the period of six months, at a salary of L 5 per month, and " should employee leave before that time all wages to be forfeited." The plaintiff lent them money to pay their passages from Melbourne to Hokitika. On Monday, the 7th instant, witness brought an action in this Court against another person (Kate Carmody), and since that both the defendants had refused to do any work or to dance, but continued to reside in the plaintiff's house. Witness had to employ another girl (Marian Collier) to do their work. In consequence of the defendants refusing to dance, the plaintiff had suffered considerable loss. Witness had had to pay the musician his wages. The amount charged for damages would not cover more than halftheloss the plaintiff had sustained. Marian Collier deposed that she was employed by Mrs Dodd last Friday week at L 2 per week. The 'defendants did not do any work. Witness never heard Mrs Dodd ask them to dance or to do any work — William Thompson deposed that he wasa musician. About a fortnight ago the defendants ceased to dance. They had not danced since. He had not seen any other girls dancing there since they left. Trade had fallen off since they had given up dancing. Witness was paid L 3 a-week. By the Court — Witness had no idea what the receipts of the house were. No charge was made for admission. The house is at times well attended. Sometimes from fifty to one hundred people would be there. This closed the plaintiff's case — Isabella Smith being sworn deposed that Mrs Dodd promised her, as well as Hannah Sullivan, to allow them to leave after Kate Carmody' s case was over. They had some dispute with her about leaving the dancing-room after the dancing was over on the evening of the day upon which the case was heard. She had not previously objected to their going to bed after the dancing was over, but on this night she wished them to stay up. She said that there was as much money spent in the house after the dancing was over as while it was going on. On the following morning, Mrs Dodd refused to allow them to leave. She said she would keep them there or in gaol for the term of their agreement (six months). They had both to sleep in the same bunk. There were nine bunks, besides the one they slept in, in the room. When first they went there, and for some tone afterwards, there was no latch on their bedroom door, and men used to walk m and out. A latch was afterwards put thJ\L L?f ? laintiff had stated SfrnW 7 #to §Jmce after Monday S T !^£* 2?** Was not COTr ec£. They *d not refuse to dance till the following

Thursday, when their month was up. The plaintiff had made a charge for board. They were starved whilst they were there. They were fed on nothing but scraps. By the Court — Mrs Dodd did not advance them any money. They received a passage-ticket, but no money. Mr Rees contended that the plaintiff was entitled to recover if not the whole of the amount claimed, certainly a portion of it. The defendants had entered mto a contract, and they had attempted to put it aside. They were bound to fulfil it. The plaintiff had completed her part of the contract, and claimed the protection of the law. The contracts were legal. Judgment was reserved till the following day. — His Worship remarked that he would like to see dancing-rooms done away with. He wished the law would allow of them being set aside. It was not the legitimate business of an hotelkeeper to keep a dancing-room. Half the villany and crime was concocted . in those places. His Worship must say he hoped the law would llot compel him to give judgment for the plaintiff. The Court was then adjourned till eleven o'clock on the following day.