RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 464, 11 February 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Feb 9. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. Two women were brought up, both of whom had on the previous day attempted to commit suicide by throwimg themselves into the Buller river. One was brought up as suffering from mental derangement, aud was remanded for medical examination. She had lately come down from the Buller diggings in bad health, aud was in charge of one George Nicholas. She had in the evening gone to a druggist's to get some poison, and at a later hour, when walking with Nicholas, she ran from him and precipitated herself into the water. He jumped in after her, and, after a struggle, succeeded in saving her. The other woman was charged with attempting self-murder. She was described by the witnesses as usually a sober, intelligent, and good woman, but on Monday she appeared to be under the influence of drink, and had been heard to say that, nest day, " her child would be without a mother." She was seen by Mr Labatt running towards the river, going down the embankment, and throwing herself in head-foremost. He threw off his coat and watch, and jumped iu to save her. After some difficulty he succeeded in dragging her ashore. The Magistrate cautioned the defendant against the continued use of the obvious cause of her rash act, and she was discharged. CIVIL CASES. Seaton v. M'Laren.—The Magistrate, in giving judgment iD this case, said that, independently of some peculiar questions which had been raised, the case was peculiar as the first one in which proceedings had been taken under a recent statute. The facts were that the plaintiff, Mr Seaton, put up a horse to be raffled. It came to the turn of a certain number to be thrown, and the throw was made under the belief that the number belonged to a person who was present at the raffle, one M'Curdy. The defendant bought M'Curdy's chance, and received delivery of the horse. Afterwardsit was discovered that there had been a mistake as to the holder of the particular number which had the winning throw, and the putter-up claimed to have the horse returned. But the defendant, having given up his business in Westport, went away with the horse, aud theroupoti the plaintiff applied for a warrant to arrest him, and to stop him from leaving the colony. In compliance with the Act, the. plaintiff made an affidavit. There were two things which went to make up this affidavit. One was that there was probable cause for believing that the defendant intended leaving the colony, and the other was that he did so to evade payment of this claim. When the plaintiff was in the witness-box, he said that about a month ago he had heard the defendant say that he should like to visit Victoria. He said further in explanation that, some six months ago, the defendaut had expressed his intention of leaving the colony. It was evident that, in the affidavit, the plaintiff had deliberately magnified a slight remark of the defendant iuto an express statement that he was going to Victoria. There was no doubt that the powers under the Act were given to prevent debtors from going away and evading payment of their debts. But the question was very different where there was no debt, or where there was a disputed claim. It could not be said that the defendant was going away with a fraudulent in-

tent. He refused altogether to recognise the claim, and the plaintiff himself went away, aud finding, when he came back, that the defendant had gone, he issued this warrant. On the whole he (the Magistrate) did not consider that there was sufficient cause for the plaintiff to resort to these extraordinary powers of the Court, and he thought he should thus notice the matter, as it was the first case that had occurred. The statute was never iu-1 tended to apply to cases of this sort. It appeared to be the impression that che claim made to the horse by the defendant was altogether wrongful, and, lad that been the case, the proceeding night have been justified, but not as it was. The evidence was simply that

.vhen No. 33 was called a number of persons said, " That was the lame 1 man," meaning M'Curdy, and Brown, s who was superintending the raffle, ac- J cordingly threw for M'Curdy. There f ' was no fraudulent personation on the ' ! part of M'Curdy, and, having sold his ' chance to the defendant, the defendant ( claimed the horse, to which he dearly ' ' had a title. It was in no way a fraudu- ' "■ lent transaction. " With regard to the 1 merits of the case, the objection was ' i raised that the Court could not take ' • cognisance of any claim arising out of ' i a raffle, and that the winner, and not 1 > the putter-up, was the person to take ' i proceedings. He thought that there ' 1 was a good deal of force in these ob- 1 , jections. The law was not very clear, ! - but, with reference to Courts taking cognisance of claims arising in connec- } j tion with raffles, all the authorities . seemed to answer the question in the ' f negative. This raffle was an affair ' . managed by dice, and came under the ' statute. If the Court were to take ! cognisance of it, the laws of raffles ' j would require to be considered, and he was not disposed to go into the question, nor did he think that this Court . should trouble itself about the laws of raffles. That being the case, he did not think the Court should proceed with the investigation, and he thought there must be a non-suit. Plaintiff • non-suited.—Mr Tyler, on behalf of the defendant, applied for costs and expenses. The application was opposed by Mr Pitt, but the Magistrate ultimately allowed him mileage from Brighton, whence he had been brought, h expenses for a week's detention, and > the costs of Court; the horse and bail - fr< be also delivered up to the defen- •. dant.

Wednesday, Feb. 10. e r Stephen M'lntyre and John Arnold Q were charged with fighting in the e street and causing a crowd to collect. 8 Detective Lambert proved the , offence charged. Q M'lntyre's statement was that, after o coming out of the District Court, on . ( Tuesday, he applied to Arnold for a some money he owed him. They were 8 conversing about the matter when . Arnold caught hold of him and struck s him ia the face. d Arnold stated he had only struck ~ M'lntyre when he was called by him ,f a rogue. t M'lntyre was discharged; Arnold t was fined 10s. u A charge by Mrs O'Donnell against „ Mrs Hayne was adjourned until to-day Z at ten o'clock, the defendant not havrV ing appeared.