RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 868, 30 September 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, September 26. (Before J. Giles, Esq., K.M.) ASSAULT. Catherine M'Carthy v. Maria Jennings.—ln this case the informant charged the defendant with an assault, and sought that she should be required to find sureties for her future peaceful couduct. It appeared from the evidence that the houses of the two parties adjoined, and that abusive language had been used on bo.h sides. His Worship dismissed the information, and cautioned both parties, stating that in the event of future disagreements, he should require both to find sureties. Mary Sullivan v. John Collins. — This was a similar application ; but owing to the inconsistent and defective evidence of the informant, the information was dismissed. remoying driftwood. Mary Daniels was charged by the police with having removed driftwood from the beach within the limits proscribed under the proclamation of the Nelson Superintendent. The defendant admitted the offence. Fined £3, and costs. CIVIL CASES. M'Farlane v. Moore.—Claim for £6 19s 6d, for meat supplied. The defendant admitted the delivery of the meat, but objected to the price. He was charged cightpence, whereas the advertised prices were from 3id to Gd.

The plaintiff's shopman gave evidence that the prices were those regularly charged for all meat that was delivered outside the shop aad looked. The advertised prices had reference only to purchases made in the shop which were paid for, and taken delivery of at the time. His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, and costs. Suisted Bros, v Minnie Brown.— Claim for £3 10s 3d. Judgment for plantiffs by default. Timothy Gallagher v O'Brien —ln this case the defendant was called upon to show cause why he had failed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of £7 6s 2d the amouut of a judgment summons obtained on September Bth. The defendant was sworn, and examined as to his circumstances. He stated that he was not able to pay the amount when the judgment was obtained, nor was he now.

By the plaintiff:—l do not generally transact my own business. Mrs O'Brien transacts my business. 1 give my earnings to my wife. I was unaware that I owed you anything until I was summoned. You called just previous to summoning—the same day—about your account. I asked my wife if she had auy money, and told her, if she had, to give it to you. She replied, that she had none, and I asked you to wait for a few days. There was no more prospect of being able to pay you then than at the time you made the demand. I gave my wife £lO or £l2 which I had earned in the claim, but I got nothing from it since the Ist of the current month, when it was worked out. I never heard my wife say that she would give you a turn and never pay you. I always intend to pay what 1 owe, and have done so for the last five years. I tendered £5 to the Clerk of the Court, but he declined it, stating that he could not accept any sum short of the full claim. I did not offer it to you, because I thought it was no use trying to make terms with a man, who would take out a summons on the same day that he first made application for an account.

By the Court; Mrs O'Brien keeps a boarding house. I am doing nothing at present. By the Plaintiff: I have £2 on mo at present, and I have £4 or £5 at home. I never made up my mint! to go to Sydney. I cannot say whether J shall go or not, I may go in the course of three months. I shall not leave within a month.

The plaintiff stated that he did not | blame the defendant in the matter, but j ho believed that hia wife had no intention of paying him. She had paid other accounts but refused to pay him. If the defendant went away to Sydney he would have no remedy against his wife ; and he believnd that the only object in putting him off, Was to enable the defendant to get away. His "Worship was of opinion from the evidence that the claim might have been paid, had there been a disposition to do so; and made an order for the payment of £2 forthwith, and the balance in three days, or, in default, one month's imprisonment. Same v. M'Knight.—This was a similar action for. the recovery of £5 10s.

The defendant stated that he was heavily in debt ) that he had received £lO since the judgment was obtained on September 12 ; and, as far as it would go, had paid his creditors with the money. By the Bench : I have no judgment creditor except the plaintiff. His Worship desired it to be understood that in all cases where a debtor had a judgment creditor, it was necessary that his claim should take precedence of others. He would not say to the entire exclusion of others; but the Court would require that some arrangement should be come to with him before liquidating other existing liabilities.

By the Plaintiff: I have no property, except a hut. I have some hens and goats. I have not transferred my property. 1 did say to you that you mi«ht consider yourself paid. I might have said to you after the manner you treated me that " I would fly in the air" for your money. I was upwards of four weeks earning the £lO. I have been working for Wall and party, putting in a tunnel; but we are knocked off work now.

By the Bench : I see no prospect of paying at the present time. About £35 are due to me from different parties, but there is no likelihood of getting the money until they wash up at Christmas.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant had refused to pay the amount due. He said, referring to a man named Connell, that he would put me through like Connell did. To which witness replied that if the law was as effective in his case"jas in Connell's, he wou'd be satisfied.

His Worship stated that he had reason to believe that the defendant had no intention of paying unless compelled to do so, and ordered the immediate payment of the amount claimed, or, in default, one month's imprisonment.