RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 780, 23 February 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, February 21

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

John Heaphy, miner, of the Inangahua, was charged, upon the information of John Temperly, with having used abusive and insulting language towards the informant, on February 14th, calculated to cause a breach of the peace. The defendant pleaded guilty to the arraignment and stated, in extenuation, that he had been up-country for the last three years ami a half and that during the seventeen years he had been in the colonics no charge, until the present, had been brought against him. He used the language referred to in consequonee of having found a man in posses-ion of his bunk without the slightest explanation having been offered. His Worship said that from the fact of the charge having been admitted and his being personally acquainted with the circumstances he would not call evidence. The defendant must be aware that the charge had been laid in a milder way than it might have been. He was only charged with abusive language whereas an actual assault had been committed. The circumstances of the case were peculiar in respect to the mnchincry of Government being particularly defective in so distant a locality, and a good deal having to he trusted to the miners themselves to observe order. But for the presence of one or two individuals, such as the defendant, there would be no difficulty whatever in the administration of justice. He did not, however, wish to deal severely with the case, but, at the saiv.e time, he was determined to show that the fact of a locality being distant, and, to a certain extent, inaccessible, would not enable an offence against law and order to be committed with impunity. The defendant would be fined 20s, or,

in default-, two days' imprisonment with hard labor. CIVIL CASES. Brown v. Camfrod. In this case the summons had not been returned from Wellington, and the case was adjourned for 14 days. Mailer v. Daring. A claim for £l2 19s sd. Judgment for the plaintiff by default in the amount claimed and costs. Munro and M'Larcn v. Row lands. Claim for £22 15s Bd. Mr Pitt appeared for tho plain iffa and Mr Home for the defendant. In this case the plaintiffs sued the defendant for certain moneys paid on his behalf in obtaining a lease and incurred in preparing certain agreements, the plaintiffs having been employed to perform these acts. Mr Home objected to the particulars of demand furnished as not being in conformity with the 31st section of the Resident Magistrate Act. After some argument an adjournment was consented to on the plaintiffs' paying costs, tnd the case was set down for hearing on Friday next. Sheldon v. Itoland. In this case a summons had been served upon the defendant to show cause that she should not be imprisoned in default of payment of the sum of £3 17s, due to the plaintiff The plaintiff pleaded not indebted, stating that she was a married woman. His Worship said that it was not the time to set up any defence, the case, so far as her liability was concerned, having been already decided. The defendant thereupon offered to pay 10s weekly. His Worship made an order for the payment of the debt in weekly instalments of 10s, or, in default, 14 days' imprisonment. Brown v. Roland. Claim for £2. This was a similar case to the foregoing, and his Worship ordered the payment' of 10s weekly until the debt was liquidated.