RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 745, 3 December 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, December 2. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.) MALICIOUS IXJURY TO PROPERTY. Ann Johnston appeared, charged, on the information of J. A. M. Turner, with having wilfully and maliciously removed and taken away the Belfast Hotel from the site occupied at the corner of Avery Row and Molesworthstreet; the same being the property of the informant. Mr Pitt appeared for the informant and Mr J. Bickerton Fisher for the defendant. The case had been adjourned for a fortnight for the production of a witness named Baliner, who would prove the attestation of a deed under which the informant held his title. Mr Pitt contended that, although unable to produce the attesting witness, his "Worship would be justified in inspecting the deed and in proceeding with the case. He would call as a witness John Aitcheson Carr. Mr Fisher contended that, unless the evidence of the attesting witness were produced, the case could not be proceeded with. He called his Worship's attention to various clauses in the conveyancing ordinance and quoted the criminal practice, showing that where an instrument did not require an attesting witness, but one had nevertheless attested it, the witness must be produced to give evidence. It was very clear that if in such a case the viva voce examination of the witness was necessary, it was moreespecially demanded in respect to a document requiring attestation. His Worship acquiesced with Mr Fisher, and the information was dismissed. ASSAULT. An information laid by Catherine Macarthy, charged Joseph Baulty witlv assault and battery on Tuesday the 29th ult. The informant stated that, on Tuesday last, she was chopping wood at the dwelling of Alexander M'lntosh, at I the Orawaiti. The defendant came I

up and wanted her to go away with him. She refused to go, and he then assaulted her.

A witness, named Alexander M'lntosh, gave corroborative evidence. The defendant stated that he had not assaulted her. He gave her good advice, and wanted to get her away. His Worship said that there had been previous complaints, both by the present informant and others, charging the defendant with threatening and abusive language. Under these circumstances, he should deal with the case more severely than he otherwise, would have done, although the assault did not appear to have been of a very serious nature. The defendant would be fined £3 and costs, or in default 21 days' imprisonment with hard labor. In the event of any further charge of a similar character being proved, the defendant would bo sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

CIVIL CASES. Smyrk v. Eiehard Lane—Claim for £3 2s.

His Worship said that he could not deal with the case, as the defendant was at present a debtor confined in H.M. gaol, Westport. The plaintiff stated that he believed the service of the summons was good, though served upon the defendant while in gaol. His Worship did not deny that the service might be good, but he had no power to produce the debtor. Case adjourned. Gibson v. same—Claim for £32 15s. This case was also adjourned.