CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 787, 11 March 1871, Page 2

CHARLESTON.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Thursday, March 9. (Before Charles Broad, Esq., E.M). Alexander v. Thompson.—An action for abusive language. Hugh Alexander, sworn, stated that on Saturday night last he met Thompson at the Empire Hotel. The defendant abused complainant for not having lent him a tape line, using language unfit for publication. Cross-examined by defendant. I am an assistant storekeeper. When I told you I only had new tape lines, you gave me abuse. I told you I never saw you in the store but once before, and then you came to borrow something. James Comerford heard defendant using the abusive language complained of towards Alexander, in Nahr's billiard room. John Nolan also heard Thompson abusing plaintiff in the terms that the court had already heard. Defendant pleaded intoxication. His Worship said that was no excuse and fined him .£3 or fourteen days' imprisonment. Macarthy v. Strike. This also was an action for abusive language. Mr Shapter appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Pitt for the defendant. Thoina3GeorgejMacarthy, sworn : lam a Justice of the Peace. I know the defendant. On the evening of March Ist he came up to where myself and three others were standing, and asked me what I had said about his taking my bottles. I told him either he or his man had taken them. He then said that I was the greatest rogue in Charleston, and told me to give Jolliffe the money I had swindled him out of, or words to that effect. That my being aJ. P. would not authorise me to do as 1 chose. He was very close to me at tho time. Cross-examined: We had frequent altercations about two years ago, but have not since spoken. James Fenton, sworn: I know plaintiff and defendant. We were standing near the corner of Camp-street when Strike came up and asked plaintiff if he accused him if stealing his bottles. He replied that he did not, but said something to the effect that he would not trust him. I should not think Ids demeanour becoming if he came up to me in that manner. Daniel Moloney, sworn, stated that he was present upon the occasion referred to, and heard defendant asking plaintiff if he accused him of stealing his bottles. Witness then walked into Ins shop, because there appeared a likelihood of " strikes" on both sides. H. J. Price stated that he was one of the parties standing by when defendant came up and accused plaintiff of stealing his bottles. Mr Pitt addressed the Court for the defence. He maintained that the case was a trumpery one, and that the evidence of the witnesses was without weight. His Worship decided that, as there had been frequent altercations between the parties, he woidd -inflict a penalty of 20s and costs.