RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 473, 4 March 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday. Mahch 2. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Alexander Eussel, for having been drunk and disorderly, was fined 20s. PACKEBS' POINT POLITICS. The adjourned information by Thomas Nelson King against Owen O'Neill, for provoking and insulting language, was heard. The defendant called Alexander Scott and Henry Wallace, whose evidence went to show that the words which he was charged with using could not have been used about the hour stated by the complainant—three o'clock on Thursday last. Mrs King, also called by the defendant, said: You came into our place on Thursday, and threw a paper on the counter. Mr King asked what it was. You said he would 3ee when he opened it. Then you said it was for the geese taking the valuable seeds in your paddock. Mr King replied "You have no seeds in your paddock." I went to the paddock, and brought down some of the "valuable seeds." They were nothing but weeds. I showed them to you. The answer you gave is on that paper. I shall not repeat the words. JSo gentleman would ask me to utter such things. I said that if you would come out of the boat I would horse-whip you. You said you would have me chained to the logs, and that you would not allow us to live where we were. You so enraged me that I could not say all that happened. 1 said you were a very bad, wicked, younsj man, and I say that your conversation is disgusting at all times. Mr King told you to come and get your money. He did not say " You bloody hound, come and get your ten guineas." You were going in the boat at the time, as we thought to get a summons, as usual. By Mr Pitt: His manuer was very insulting, and his language was of a disgusting character.

The defendant: Well, your "Worship, on Thursday the 25th they had been pasturing fowls on my ground where I had sown grass seeds. 1 had come to complain several times. They, annoyed mo on each occasion, and I determined to summons them. About half-past ten I went in with this bill, and left it on the counter. I did not exchange words, as I knew there would be a row. He asked me what it was, and I said he would see when he opened it. I went iuto the house, and after a while came out. Mrs King was standing before her own door. She had her apron full of stuff taken from the paddock. King said " o']S T eill, here's the valuable seeds you claim." She said " I'll horse-whip you" and she added that she had horse-whipped many a man before. I said " If you horse-whip me, I'll put you in the logs." King said " Come in here, you bloody hound, and I'll give you your ten guineas." I said " I think I'll decline. I'll take you to the proper place for that." She went back to the paddock and pulled more weeds, so as to aggravate me. That is the only language that passed between King and me, and it was at that time of day. The Magistrate said that all that the defendant's witnesses had proved was that the plaintiff was mistaken as to the hour of the occurrence. The principal insult was apparently to Mrs King, end the defendant himself did not contradict it. The quarrel was a miserable one, and possibly both parties were in fault, but provoking language of the kind, tending to a breach of the peace, could not be permitted, and he would require the defendant to give surety for £25 to keep the peace for six months, and to pay the cost of proceedings (£3 145,) there having been no grounds whatever for an adjournment of the case. CIVIL CASES. Thowas Howe v. Sherlock. A claim for the value of goods sold. Mr Tyler said he could non-suit the plaintiff on a non-joinder, part of the debt having been incurred to bim and one Patrick Burke, who had since ceased to be bis partner, but he (Mr Tyler) would consent to the plaint being amended. He applied also that, as the debt was incurred by the defendant and another man who "had left the district, an. order for payment by instal-

ment should only be made. An order was made for the payment of the first half of the account at the rate of 30a a week, and for the rest at the rate of £1 a week.

Leslie v. Kelly.—A claim of £6 10s for beer and kegs. The defendant admitted the debt except £2 2s 6d, the value of beer and kegs returned. The plaintiff's book-keeper and traveller both appeared to prove the debt, but neither of them hadawritten authority. The Magistrate said he thought it was now well enough understood in Westport that an agent must produce in Court a written authority. Judgment for the amount admitted by the defendant was given and accepted on behalf of the plaintiff. Susan M'Carthy v. Sheldon. A claim of £5 for attendance upon the defendant's wife as nurse and general servant. The plaintiff is a professional nurse under certain circumstances, and under such circumstances had been engaged by the defendant's wife. She stated her own case in Court, and, being of a somewhat excitable temperament, and extremely conscientious as to minute facts, she greatly amused and occasionally amazed the Court by ber recital of professional or domestic details which it is impossible* to report. The circumstance which had l-endered her services necessary was the birth of twins. She stated her agreement, and, referring to the defendant, continued : I was just getting warm in bed, your Worship, when he came for me. I slipped on my petticoats and ran down to her. I lingered all night with her. and had not so much as a cup of tea, and not a bit to heat. I sat from Sunday night —all night hup, your Worship—and on Monday I confined her of two childer. I stayed with her from Sunday till Thursday, when she discharged me. Mr Pitt: Why did she discharge you ? Plaintiff : I hasked a little time to make up my bed for my old man—my own old man ; and when I came back, she said she would do herself.

Mr Pitt: You have got a husband, then ? Plaintiff: I 'ave, Sir, but I go hout nursing. The Magistrate: You should have put his name in the summons. Plaintiff: I'm ignorant, your Worship. It's only my ignorance. The Magistrate : What is ycur husband's name ? Plaintiff: Sim M'Carthy, please your Worship. The Magistrate; What? Constable Neville: She means Simon, your Worship. The Magistrate : Samuel ? Plaintiff: No, Simon. Isn't Sim Simon ? Mr Pitt: Did you not engage to wait on Mrs Sheldon for nine days for £3? Plaintiff: No, your Worship, because I would lose twicet as much by being out of my own 'ouse. The place was dirty, and I tidied it up a bit, and and you know, your Worship, I have dear earned it. Mr Pitt: When did this little event happen ? Plaintiff: On the Monday. Mr Pitt: And on the Wednesday you went away. Plaintiff: Oa the Thursday evening, begging your pardon, Sir. Mr Pitt: .Jid you not come back on that evening in a state of intoxication? Plaintiff: Oh, deary me! What things they are putting into his head. Now, look here, did you not give me a cup of beer yourself, and I had nothink for my dinner but a dry crust ? The Magistrate : You must not ask Mr Pitt any questio; s. Plaintiff: It's not Mr Pitt, your Worship. Deary no. It's that man there. Mr Pitt repeated his question. Plaintiff: How could I when I made a pot of gruel for her ? Begging your pardon, your Worship, they are tryiug to do me out of my money, and I have dear earned it. Mr Pitt: Did Dr Thorpe order you away ? Plaintiff: Dr Thorpe was not there. I only wish he was here now. He would soon speak for me. Mr Pitt: Did not Dr Thorpe tell you to go away because you were intoxicated ? Plaintiff: Whatever's the use of you telling lies ? What can they mean by putting it into his head to tell such lies! The Magistrate : If you talk in that way, I shall have to put you in custody. Plaintiff: I hope you don't, your Worship. Mr Pitt: On one occasion did not Dr Thorpe— Plaintiff: I beg your pardon. On Wednesday didn't you bring me in a bunch of turnips, and ask me to cook the tops, because you so liked tops ? The Magistrate : I cannot allow you to make that noise. You must answer the question, and not address the defendant. If you do not behave yourself properly, I shall have to order you into custody. Mr Pitt: You have not answered my question. Were you or were you not, when Dr Thorpe was present, under the influ— Plaintiff: Never, Sir. He was never present. He never spoke to me except about my bad thumb. And that thumb, your Worship, is all through them.

Mr Pitt: "Were you not intoxicated? Plaintiff: I beg your pardon. I can't afford it. I would have to borrow the money if I did. I had to borrow these four shillings to pay the costs.

Mr Pitt concluded his questions, after an answer given to the effect that she had asked for £3 only. The Magistrate: Are you going to call any witnesses ? Plaintiff: Oh, no, your Worship. I have nobody. But I hope you'll speak a word for me yourself. Toil see they're all against mo, and it's too bad. Look at me, up night and day minding these two childer. How would rou like it? The defence was that the plaintiff was to receive £3, but that she misconducted herself, by getting intoxicated, and another nurse had to be procured. Witnesses were called who gave evidence in support of the defence. The Magistrate said that, where such a defence was made, it was necessary to show that there was an indivisible agreement. Where such an agreement was not distinctly shown, a plaintiff was entitled to fair remuneration. Judgment for the plaintiff, for £2. Plaintiff: God bless your Worship. Is it £2 I'm going to get ? God bless you for speaking for me.