RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume 1, Issue 149, 22 January 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

(Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., RM.) Tuesday, January 22. Faine was brought up charged with having on the 10th inst. broken the window of Mr P. King of Westport. It appeared that on the 10th inst. plaintiff noticed the prisoner and another man quarrelling in the street, when they fell against witness's window and broke it. They ran away but he followed and caught him, when he stated that he lived at the Empire Hotel. He went to the Empire on the following day, but found he did not reside there. Detective Lambert proved arresting the defendant, when he offered to pay for the broken window.

His Worship decided that the case was one of a civil nature, and therefore dismissed it.

Edward Quigley was fined for using abusive language and assaulting Mr S. Ellis, storeman to Messrs. Hennelly and Millen. O'Brien v. Wood. —His "Worship, in giving judgment in this case, charcterised it as one of fraudulentlyendeavoring to prevent the plaintiff obtaining possession of tbe goods in dispute, and, therefore, ordered the warrant to be executed.

Burnetii v. Mills —Mr Campbell, solicitor appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Tyler for defendant.

Thiswas a claim for £32 2s 6d, being balance of moneys due on contract for certain alterations to public-house, according to plans and specifications, as well as for some extra work done as requested by defendant.

A set-off for the moderate sura of £25 for refreshments was put in by Mr Tyler, which plaintiff's solicitor at once objected to, on the plea that it had not been put in twenty-four hours before the case was heard—objection over-ruled by the bench. Mr Campbell applied for the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant.

Mr Tyler did not know anything about it. Plaintiff stated he had served them with a notice to produce it. The contract was then produced which went to show that the work was to be done according to plans, for the sum of £65.

Mr Tyler objected to the document being put in as evidence, as it wa3 not stamped, and then read a portion of the Stamp Act to show that it could not be allowed in evidence, but His Worship could not see it in the same light as Mr Tyler, and over-ruled his objection. His Worship asked plaintiff who wrote out the document. The plaintiff replied, his partner Mr Davies.

The work was done to the entire satisfaction of the defendant. I did other work besides that originally contracted for. I put up a bedroom and she told me she would pay for any extras done over and above what was originally agreed upon.

I nlso made an alteration to the alcillion which was not in the original contract. There was other work done, I put in two double and one single window sashes, made three dressing tables, also three tables, put up a pump, hung a chandalier, made two tills, and put up paper round the room, and finished it all to Mrs Mills satisfaction. I was about three weeks at work. Mrs. Mills said she was satisfied with the way in which the work was done. I boarded with Mrs. Mills about three weeks. I supplied timber according to coutract for the original work. Mr. Tyler, cross-examined plaintiff" —Entered into contract on the 12th October. Harry Davis was a partner in it. I was to alter the house for £7O and erect the skillion for kitchen. Skillion was to be erected for the extra £5. Could not say whether I was drunk the whole of the twentythree days. Had some drinks at Mrs. Mills. I did not have on the 3rd, 4th, and sth thirty pints of beer, on the 6th, 7th, and Bth did not have thirty more pints of beer. Mrs Mills, examined by Mr. Campbell—Burnetti boarded three weeks with me. My usual charge for board and lodging is 50s. per week. I never shouted for Burnetti and then charged him with it. I repeatedly asked Burnetti to go on with his work, and never asked him to drink. Had twenty drinks at a time on some occasions before he left the bar. Davis said he would not do any more work as Burnetti was continually drunk and would not assist him. Mr. Somner, on being sworn, stated he had examined a portion of the extra work done, and he thought that the sum of £23 would be a fair price for it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tyler—He did not go into all the rooms, lie only went into one room, the others were occupied at the time and he could not go into them. He was told the bedsteads, waskstands, and tables were the same in the other rooms as iu the one shown to him. He could not say whether the tables were morticed or not—the difference in time required for morticing would be very trifling—he would as soon make them one way as the other. The tables were not all one size—it would not make any difference in the time required between making a small table and a large one ; the difference of one foot in the length would make no difference to speak of. Thomas Wardrope, on being sworn, stated he had often served Burnetti with drinks. He kept the books for Mrs Mills —he remembered 6th or 7th October—he was playing yankee grab with Burnetti and several others. Burnetti sometimes lost. I put them dow r n to him when he lost. Mrs. Mills sometimes came and told me to put drinks down to him. I did so when I was told. I gave Mr. Burnetti his account. I showed him the amount in the book and he did not dispute it. By Mr Campbell—l keep the books. Mrs. Mills told me at times to put down drinks to Burnetti. I did so. I have not got the book here. I did not think it would be wanted. I made out the account from the book. I did not bring it (the book) because no one else could understand it but myself. I did not know it would be wanted.

Mr. Bull, on being sworn, stated that he had examined the work. He did not think the work done was worth more than £l2. He should be dissatisfied if any person at work for him did not make the three tables in a day and and a-half.

Mr. Tyler stated he was walking down Gladstone street when he met Mr. Davis and he told Davis that Mrs. Mills had received a summons from Burnetti for work done. I then advised him to go and see Mrs. Mills along with me. "We then went towards her house, and on arriving there we saw Burnetti. We passed on as we thought it advisable that Burnetti should not see us, and waited until Burnetti came out, we then went in and saw Mrs. Milk Davis thenoffei-ed to take £lO and give a receipt in full. Mrs. Mills would not give him £lO, and she gave as the reason that Burnetti had done nearly all the extra work, and she thought if she paid him that Burnetti might come upon her again for the money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell—l did not advise Mrs. Mills to give him £lO to square the account. We went because ,we did not want Burnetti to see ; we watched for him to come out.

His Worship, in giving judgment, stated that he should retain the money paid into Court till the consent of Mr. Davis, who was evidently a partner of the plaintiff's, had been obtained. He would allow the sum of £65 instead of £7O, as being the amount of the original contract, and for the extras £l3 4s 6d, which would leave a balance of £l7 4s odd. The amount set down

for refreshments he should reduce to £lO. Ho should therefore give judgment for £1 17s Gd. Mr. Campbell applied for costs under the Extended Jurisdiction. Mr. Tyler objected, but the Bench ■overruled the objection and allowed three guineas costs, and costs of one witness. Jenkins v. lung —This was a claim for damage done by goats to some cabbages in plaintiff's paddock, to the valuu of 20s. Plaintiff cross-examined by defendant —I saw the goat among the cabbages —I saw her eating them—she destroyed 20 head of cabbage. By the Bench—l applied to defendant for the damage done—he refused to pay, and said the goat has as good a right there as 1 had. I did not turn a horse out of the paddock on the same day. Mrs King did not tell me to mend the fence and then she would hobble the goat. Defendant admitted that the goa had been in the paddock, and he also said that Mr Jen kings set the dogs on to the goat, and worried it so much that she had lost her two little ones, and hi-; thought he was the aggrieved party instead of the plaintiff. His Worship could not view the case in the same light as Mr King, and gave judgment for 10s and costs.