RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 862, 16 September 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, September 12. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Louis Sweet v. Annie Colman.— This was the hearing of an information for assault, in which it was sought that the defendant be bound over to keep the peace. The evidence of the informant and a witness named Catliff fully proved the assault, which in fact was not denied by the defendant. The latter sought to extenuate the offence on the ground of provocation, but failed to adduce any evidence in support of such a defence ; and the testimony of Catiiff proved most clearly that the defendant committed the assault, without the slightest provocation having been given at the time. The Bench decided that the assault was proved, and inflicted a fine of 40s and costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment ; and further called upon the defendant to find sureties for her good behaviour for the term of six months. DRUNKEN-ESS. John Ward, charged with this offence, was fined 20s, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. Henry Hunter v. Annette Blanchette.—ln this case a summons hadi been issued calling upon the defendant to show cause that she had failed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of £8 17s, being costs adjudged by the Court in the case of Bianchette v. Hunter, tried on Sept. 8. In which case the judgment was for the defendant with costs. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant, and asked that the summons be dismissed, on the grounds that the action tried on Friday had arisen out of a seizure by Hunter of his client's goods and chattels, it being alleged that she was the wife of a party against whom a warrant of distress had been issued. On that occasion the present defendant denied being the wife of the person against whom the warrant had been issued. The Court decided, however, against her, and decreed the payment of costs. He objected, however, the previous case having been decided against her as a married woman, that for the purposes of the present action she should be regarded as a feme-sole. His Worship did not think that he could adopt that view of the case at the present stage, but it appeared to him that the act did not make provision for the present form of action in respect to costs adjudged by the Court. He was of opinion that an action did not lie under sec. 7 of the R. M. Act, 1868, and the case would, therefore, be dismissed, without costs. Gallagher v. M'Knight.—Claim for .£lO, fo'r damages caused by the removal of a hut.

Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff. The defence set up was that the hut had previously belonged to a miner named M'Loughlin, who had regarded it as comparatively worthless, and had

given it to the defendant, who the day previous to the action had offered the plaintiff 30s as satisfaction.

It appeared from the evidence of M'Laughlin that he had given the hut to the defendant, but had subsequently made it over to the plaintiff as a set-off to the extent of £2 2s against value previously received in the shape of goods supplied. M'Laughlin also admitted that since the transfer to Gallagher he had told the defendant that he would be welcome to the hut, but claimed to have have only made the second offer jocularly.

The defendant stated that he was willing to settle the matter on learning that the hut had been disposed of to Gallagher, and had offered 30s through a butcher, named George Lamplough. The hut had been built four years, the chimney was burnt through, it had no floor, and the weatherboards being of white pine it was now valueless. Before he took it down Hie hut was a wreck, serving as a playhouse for children. The Court awarded the plaintiff £3 damages, and costs amounting to £2 lGs.