RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 224, 20 April 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

Friday 17 April, 1868. (Before Chas. Broad, Esq., R.M.) TM 1 Shane was charged with stealing a bag of carpenter's tools, the property of Thomas Dossett. Tho prosecutor deposed that in February last he had a quantity of tools stolen from him, from the house in which he was living at Candlelight Flat. Last "Wednesday he accompanied Detective Rowley to a claim on Candlelight Flat belonging to Harold and party, and there found the Beveral tools produced of the total value of £2 4s. He went there in consequence of receiving information that the prisoner was seen working with the tools. Some of the tools were partly concealed under the tables of the machine. Detective Rowley corroborated the above evidence and the gaoler proved the finding the tape measure produced ; when brought to the lock-up, it was immediately identified by the prosecutor as his property. For the defence, E. H. Rich was called who stated, that some time in March he had asked the prisoner to gather up Dossett's tools, which were then lying about, and he said he would. The prisoner was remanded until Monday. Kennedy and Heighway v. Johnstone. —This was a re-hearing. Mr Home and Mr Rees appeared for the defendant. There was a plea of set off which was objected to by Mr Kennedy and disallowed. Another objection of Mr Kennedy's as to want of timely notice was overruled.

The items elaimed for were £5 LOs on a dishonored cheque, £2 cash lent, and £4< 10s for board and lodging of defendant and a man whom it was alleged he had put in as bailiff. The claim was admitted as to the first item, but not as to the others, and after a good deal of relevant and irrelevant evidence on both sides, the Magistrate considered that justice would be met by a judgment for £7 6s. Mr Bees asked that the amount of the judgment should be held in Court until the result of the action as to the set-off, but his Worship did not see the necessity of such a course.

Frederiche Sf Co. v. Taylor. —Claim, £l6. This was a case heard a short time back, in which a plea of coverture had been put forward by the defendant who had contracted the liability under the name of Miss Catherine Taylor, but when sworn stated she was a married woman and her name Mrs Phelin, and an adjournment took place to allow of the production of the marriage certificate. This was now produced. Mr Home, for the plaintiffs, urged the glaring injustice of allowing the plea of coverture in such a case, but the Magistrate said he had no option. Plaintiffs nonsuited.

Lewis v. Fagg. —Claim, £6 6s 6d, the amount of an 10 U. Judgment for plaintiff by default.

Trustees in the Estate of Hobbs and Ohlson v. Twohill. —Mr Rees appeared •on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr Home Ifor defendant. There were two actions, one claiming £96 for 32 weeks' rent of a billiardtable, the 'other £IOO as damages for detention of same table, and before •entering upon either, Mr Home raised ■the objection that under the statute the plaintiffs could not divide the cause of action, where, as in the present -matter, the two actions related to one and the same cause.

Mr Rees contended, in reply, that there were two entirely distinct causes <of action, >one being the thing itself—the billiard-table—and the other a <claim for its use and occupation. The magistrate, after hearing the supported Mr Home's objection, so far as to decide that two were inadmissible, and called upon Mr Eees to elect which action he would go "upon. Mr Eees having cnosen the action for detenu, went into the witness-box, -and having been sworn, said the deed of trust produced, conveying all the property of Hobbs and Ohlson to trustees for the benefit of creditors,, was signed by the parties in his presence, and he saw possession given of the property, including the two billiard tables, to a man whom the trustees placed in possession. A few days after, Griffin, an execution creditor broke open the house "with an axe, put in » bailiff from ■the court, and sold the property, one of the billiard tables being bought by the present defendant.

Mr Home said there was nothing in the doed produced to connect the bil-liard-table with the property of Hobbs -and Ohlson, there was no schedule attached. He contended also that the should have been brought either against Griffin or the bailiff.

Mr Bees agreed that it was quite ■optional with the plaintiff to proceed any one of the parties concerned. An action had been commenced against Ctriffin, who (became insolvent, and a nonsuit was taken in order that the present action might be brought; the bailiff was dead.

The Magistrate questioned the legality of proceeding beyond principals to third parties, in such a case he thought persons attending a bailiff's sale had a right to suppose the sale was legal. A long argument followed on this point, Mr Rees being profuse in authorities tending to show the liability of the vendee.

Another objection was made to the deed by Mr Home, who pointed out that it had not been registered until two days after the twenty eight days required by the act.

Mr Rees contended that sach particularity of registration only concerned the 'creditors interested, and could not affect the main question of transfer, but the •Magistrate looked upon the objection as ifatal and nonsuited the plaintiffs.