RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S .COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 664, 9 November 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S .COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) Breach of Dog- Nuisance OaDiNAtfcs. — Samuel Meyerstein for having an unj| registered dog in his following, was flnea^ Ll with costs. Breach of Police Obdinancb, — John Cosgrave for obstructing the thoroughfore, viz., Revell street, by allowing cases to stand thereon, was fined Ll with costs. — Bridget Kelly was charged on the information of Anne Byrnes, with using abusive language towards her on the 4th instant, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. From the evidence adduced on either side, it appeared that both complainant and defendant had used most disstusting language towards each other. — His Worship dismissed the information aud told thorn if they brought a similar case into the Court again, he would bind them both over to be of good behavior. CIVIL CASES. M.'G-irrv. Hardcastle, Sequestrator in the bankrupt estate of Burke and M'Hugh — Mr Rces for the plaintiff. Mr South for the defendant. Plaintiff sued the defendant for L9O, for nine weeks rent (from August 28th to October 30fch), of premises in Revell street, at ten pounds ten sliillings per week. John M'G-irr deposed thtt he owned property in Revell street. Mes-rs Burke and M'Hugh were formerly his tenants. He gave them notice to quit the premises on the 28th of August. Witness informed them of they retained possession of the premises they would have to pay a rental of LlO 10s per week-, Burke and M'Hugh became insolvent, 'and the sequestrator, the defendant, took possession of the property, and placed a bailiff in charge. The witness informed the defendant of the notice he had served - upon -'Burke and M'Hugh. The defendant replied that he (witness) had all the lax on "his own side. He told defendant 'that the "property belonged to him, and he would look to him for the rent. The defendant has let the premises to Mr Graham, who has purchased the stock-in-trade. The defendant took possession of the property on 'the 13th of September. The property is worth from five to six pounds per week. — Crossexamined by Mr South — Witness has not made any claim against the estate of BuSrke and M'Hugh for rent. — William Graham deposed that he purchased Burke and Hugh's stock. He went into possession of the premises. He has been in possession for throe weeks. He paid a rental qf 12 per week. The worth of the premises is about L 5 per week. — Cross-examinai by Mr South — Witness purchased fron.Hr Hnrdcastlc, as sequestrator in the Wpkrupt estate of Burke and M'Hugh. His tenure of the premises was only ddily.— William Sees stated that, in accordance with instructions he received, ,4«T l «iadß application to Mr Hardcastle forfhsjfjsi^ , Mr Hardcastle said the claim, jeaa-prepa^ terous, but he would not be unwilling-Jo \ pay Ll per week, or words to that effect.^- \ Cross-examined by Mr South— Witness believes that an action commenced by Burke and M'Hugh against Father M'Girr, to compoil him to give them a title, is not settled. Mr South submitted that his Worship had no jurisdiction, as > the plaintiff had not proved his debt— by affidavit — against the estate, as was provided in the Supreme rules. His Worship . stated that the debt sought to be reco. vered was not one that could be proved against the estate, and had accrued since the filing of tho petition. Mr South then moved for a nonsuit, as there was a question of title involved in this case. Mr Eees, in reply, contended that it had not been shown that Mr Harcastle disputed the title. It must be the parties to the cause who dispute the title. Unless the defendant could show that he wtt

disputing the title with the defendant he submitted that the defendant could not raise that point. His Worship remarked that although a dispute, as to title, no doubt ousted his jurisdiction, yet the mere statement that a dispute existed did not. It must become apparent from the evidence that such a dispute existed as ■ would interfere with the decision of the * case before him. If Mr South would show him that, he would nonsuit the plaintiff. Mr South called John Burke, of Burke and M'Hugh, who stated that he was not a tenant of the plaintiff's. There was a dispute as to the title of the property in question, and an action pending in the Supreme Court regarding it. He did not recognise plaintiff in this case as a landlord ; on the contrary he claimed the premises as Ms own. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. Angus v. Chesney and Spence, Mr Hill's Trustees. — This case was heard on the 30th of October, when the defendant failing to appear, judgment was given for the plaintiff. On the 2nd of November, on the the application of Mr South, supported by affidavit of Mr James Spence. his Worship granted a rehearing of the case, which was set down for hearing on the 7th inst. Mr Rees for the plaintiff. Mr South for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover from Messrs Spence and Chesney, the sum of Lls, value of a case of coffee and pepper, under the following circumstances. John Angus, deposed that he had some goods stored with Mr Hill, at Charlestown. After Mr Hill assigned his estate, he saw Mr Chesney about his goods. Mr Chesney said if the goods were his (witness) he certainly should havo them. Witness was afterwards informed that the goods were sold. He had a conversation with Mr Spence, whom he believes told him that his goods were sold with the rest of Mr Hill's property. A Mr Watson and the Auctioneer told him the goods had been sold. They consisted of a case of pepper and a case of coffee. They were valued for Lls. Cross-examined by Mr South ■ — Witness had no conversation with Mr Spence previous to his getting his dividend. Mr Hall took charge of the goods for witness. He never sold them to him. He never saw the goods in Mr Hill's store. Mr Hill informed witness that he had received the goods. — James Chesney, deposed— that Mr Hill said the goods were Angus' and that lie must have them. Witness believed he told Mr Angus that if 'he could prove the goods were his, and the law would allow of it, the trustees would perhaps pay him. the value of thorn. Mr South submitted that there was not the slightest proof that the defendants had dealt with the goods, or that the goods had ever been in their Sossession as trustee's in Hill's estate. lr Rees contended that there was abundant of evidence that the goods were the property of the plaintiff, and in the possession of the trustees and sold by them. His Worship reserved the non-suit point. Mr South called James Spence, who deposed that he was a trustee in Mr Hill's estate. Mr Angus has received his dividend together with ihe other creditors. The property of Mr Hill's estate with the Exception of a horse and carpet bag was sold and the proceeds divided amongst the creditors. The first conversation he had with Mr Angus was when plaintiff received hia dividend. Witness told him lie would have to look to Mr Hill for the goods. Angus replied " Well I suppose I must loose them." Cross-examined by Mr Rees — After assigning his estate, Mr Hill said something about some of Mr Angus' goods being in his store. Mr • Hill made an offer to buy back his estate, which was refused. It was then that he said that some of the goods in the store belonged to the plaintiff. His Worship reserved judgment in the case till the following day. The Court was then adjourned till two o'clock, when the enquiry into the wreck of the brigantine Elizabeth was proceeded with.