RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 558, 23 September 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before J. Giles Esq., E. M.) Tuesday, Sept. 21. The Court was solely occupied with the hearing of civil cases. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs, for the amounts stated: — E. Walker v. J. Evans, £10; W. Tims v. E. Gothard, £ls 16s ; E. Smyrk v. Anne O'Dea £7 3s; Somner and Thomson v. W". Eobertson, £l4 13s Gd; D. Dickenson v. J. Doak, £22 lis 9d ; Same v. D. Bevis, £4 13 6d. In the case of E. M. Farlane v. E. Hume, a claim of £6 6s 6d, the plaintiff was non-suited. Other cases were settled out of Court.

Wednesday, Sept. 22. Eobert Cassells was charged with stealing a plateful of boiled pork, and three sheep tongues from the house of Charles Sibree. The parties reside near each other in the neighborhood of the Westport Cemetry, the house of Sibree being kept by a woman named Kate Kent. The three have been on friendly terms, and on Tuesday morning had had drinks together. But during the day there was pilfered from Sibree's and Kent's house three sheep tongues and a piece of pork which had been cooked by Kent. Suspicion fell upon Cassells, and in his house, in the presence of Constable Hunter, the missing piece of pork and the tongues were found in a box upon the premises. The articles had previously been discovered there by Sibree while Cassells was purposely despatched for " a billy of beer," and on his return from that mission he was given into the constable's charge, along with the piece of pork. (The pork was neatly displayed in the Court upon a clean plate and napkin placed on the reporter's table, but was not accompanied by a knife and fork.) Mr Pitt appeared for the prisoner Cassells, and he contended that there was no evidence to show that Cassells was the person by whom the pork had been conveyed* to the premises. He considered also that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution which were damaging to the reliableness of the evidence as a whole, and as a whole it was not evidence upon which a jury would convict. The Magistrate thought that the proof against the prisoner was clear enough, although there might be minor discrepancies in the evidence. The only other presumption must be that Sibree and Kent had placed the meat in the prisoner's tent, and he saw no grounds for such a presumption. He sentenced the prisoner to three months' imprisonment with hard labor.

Elisabeth Addison, charged with drunkenness, was ordered to be fined 10s or to be imprisoned for 12 hours. A civil case—Smyrk v. O'Dea—was re-heard on the application of defendant. By permission, Mr Balmer (from Mr Tyler's office) appeared for the defendant, and Mi- Pitt for the plaintiff. The original judgment was confirmed.