RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 720, 6 October 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, October 4.

(Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.)

John Stewart, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was fined 20s or in default,24 hours' imprisonment, and sentenced to an additional 24 hours, having been similarly convicted three times within the past six months. John Mulligan was charged with disorderly conduct in Molesworth street on Monday evening. The prisoner denied the charge, and the evidence of Constable Williams was taken as to the circumstances under which Mulligan had been arrested. Williams said that about 10.15 on Monday night last the prisoner had attracted a crowd in Molesworth street. He had taken off his coat and shirt and was challenging a man named Melville to fight. Witness advised the L man to be quiet, but he persisted in wishing to fight, and used provoking language. Witness then arrested him. Constable Stephenson gave corroborative evidence, and for the defence. Thomas Bissett, tinsmith, said that Melville, who is also a tinsmith, was assaulting him. Witness was on the ground, and Melville was kicking him. The prisoner came up to assist him, and Melville gave him one in the eye. The latter was anxious to get satisfaction, and challenged Melville to fight until taken in charge by the police. Ths prisoner, whose sinister eye appeared in the deepest mourning, corroborated the previous witness as to the provocation received.

His Worship considered that the circumstances went to palliate the offence with which he was charged, and inflicted a fine of 10s, with the alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. Sergeant Keily applied, on behalf of Henry Hunter, that the Court make an order in the late case of Chapman v. Hunter. The defendant proposed to pay the amount of judgment and costs in monthly instalments of £2. Mr Pitt, on behalf of the plaintiff, objected to the matter being further considered until he had consulted with his client and the application was withdrawn in the meantime. CIVILCASES. W. Dunn v. G. Moody.—Claim for work and labor done. Mr W. Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Fisher for the defendant.

The amount sued for was made out of three items: —£9 for twelve days carpenters' work at 15s per day, 18s making a coffin, and £1 16s being the third of a contract in which the two parties to the action and a third party had consented to participate, each receiving a third of the contract price for his labor.

The defendant, on being put into the box, proved that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £8 12s Bd, but maintained that they were in partnership as carpenters and builders. After hearing the arguments of counsel, bis Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. Bull and Bond v. M'Kee.—Claim for £l6 14s, being amount of contract performed by the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted £l3 14s, and the item in dispute was as to the price agreed upon for the performance of the contract.

After hearing evidence, his Worship was of opinion that greater weight must be attached to the affirmative evidence of the plaintiffs, and gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs.