RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 194, 14 March 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, March 13. (Before J. Giles, Esq., M.D., R,M.) John King was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. Constable M'Mahon proved the offence, and Dr. Giles sentenced defendant te pay 40s, or imprisonment for 4<B hours. JOHN BLIGHT Y. GEGRGE NICHOLAS. Defendant was represented by Mr Pitt. John Blight, plaintiff, sued George Nicholas for amount due him for confectionery, &c., supplied to Crawford and Co., of the Caledonian, and as he could not find Crawford he had brought the action against Nicholas, believing him to be a partner of Crawford's. George Mudie, "William Todd, and another examined in support of plaiu-

tiff's case, and endeavored to prove the partnership between Crawford and Nicholas, by conversations with Nicholas.

George Nicholas, the defendant, denied, the partnership, and stated that Crawford owed him money. Patrick Smyth proved supplying Crawford with goods, for which his book-keeper, Gray, went security. He had previously asked Nicholas to become security, but he had refused. Witness never understood that defendant was a partner of Crawford's. The plaintiff addressed the Court in support of his case, but the Magistrate gave judgment for defendant, as he did not thiuk there was sufficient evidence to fasten any partnership with Crawford on defendant. Plaintiff was adjudged to pay costs. Another case, in which Honnies and Daniels were plaintiffs against Nicholas, resulted in a similar verdict, as the evidence was identioal with the former case. BEID AND CURLE V. STEVENSON. Defendant did not appear. Mr Tyler appeared for plaintiffs, who sued for amount of printing bills, and for which settlement had not been made. Judgment was given for plaintiffs, and and immediate execution was ordered, as plaintiff swore that defendant had executed a bill of sale over his property. JONAH LEVI V. HASKINS. Mr Tyler appeared for defendant. Levi, deposed—l have a refreshment stall at Stevenson's Assembly Rooms. On the night of the Concert in aid of Parsonage Fund, defendant gave me orders to supply the amateur singers with refreshments. There were only about sixteen altogether, but some of the Church Committee had refreshments as well. By Mr Tyler—l sued Haskins as secretary to the committee. I mentioned on the bill of particulars refreshments supplied to the Committee of the Church Parsonage Fund, because Haskins said some of them would partake of refreshments. John Bird and David Bell deposed to hearing defendant ask Stevenson to supply refreshments, and to hearing Stevenson refer him to Levi, as plaintiff had taken the refreshment department from him. Mr Tyler, for the defence, submitted that as the bill was made out to the Committee of the Church Parsonage Fund, and none of the committee had partaken of refreshments, and had nothing to do with getting up the concert ; it was a fatal objection to plaintiff's case, as he had evidently summoned the wrong parties. He called George Haskins, who deposed that on the night of the concert he ordered Stevenson to supply refreshments for the amateurs ; but that he knew nothing of plaintiff in the matter. It was as one of the committee of the amateur concert that I ordered refreshments. I am also one of the Committee of the Parsonage Fund. By the Court—The money collected did not belong to the Committee of the Parsonage Fund, until it had been handed over hy the Concert Committe3.

Win. Lloyd deposed—l am amember of the Church Committee, The concert originated with the choir, and had nothing to do with our committee. The money taken was to be handed over to us. I was at Haskins's when plaintiff brought the bill, when high words ensued about the exhorbitant character ot the bill. Wm. Pitt stated that he was a member of the Church Committee. They had nothing to do with getting up the concert, and received no refreshment on the night it came off. Mr Tyler, for the defence, Urged his former plea that had sued the wrong party, and for all he knew Stevenson might bring in his client a bill for the refreshments. He also commented on the exhorbitant nature of the bill, mentioning the dozen of portei which was charged 365.

Plaintiff addressed the Court in support of his case ; submitted that he had proved supplying the goods to defendant, and urged that his bill was a reasonable one, and he had paid Stevenson the same price he had charged for the porter. Dr Giles, in giving judgment, stated that the weight of evidence was in favor of plaintiff's right to sue, but the defence set up that the Church Parsonage Euud Committee had nothing to do with the refreshments was a fatal one for plaintiff, as this had been clearly proved. He should nonsuit plaintiff, thereby leaving him at liberty to amend his bill of particulars, as he was clearly entitled to recover from some one. HENRY GARDINER V. MARTIN. Plaintiff was represented by Mr Tyler. The claim was for wages due for work done to defendant's machinery at the quartz reef, Waimangoroa.

Several witnesses were examined, but the Court thinking the claim proved, gave judgment lor plaintiiF for amouet and costs. Prior to tho case coming on, Mr Tyler applied for the release of tho plaintiff from custody, as he had been arrested by the plaintiff" for debt on his way to the Court, and produced several precedents to show that a witness coming to Court to give evidence was protected from arrest both coming and going from Court. The Magistrate, after perusing the various precedents, gave the gaoler a written order for the plaintiff's release from custody. Several other debt cases of no public interest, came on for hearing, and at 3.30 p.m. the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. this day.