CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 934, 2 March 1872, Page 2

CHARLESTON.

(froji our oira correspondent.) A farewell banquet was given to Mr Broad, at the European Hotel, on Wednesday evening last. A great number of Mr Broad's friends attended to give a parting token of their appreciation of his couduct whilst in Charleston, and to wish him every success in his new sphere. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COUET. Thursday, February. 22. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) Kittrick v. Drannan.—Claim £lO 5s 9d, The debt was admitted by defendant, who filed a set-off for a portion of the debt, and paid the remainder into Court. Plaintiff admitted his liability for the amount of six-and-six-pence only of the amount of the set-off. The evidence of defendant went to prove that plaintiff had offered to . become responsible for some goods supplied to a man named James Somerville, stating that plaintiff came with Somerville and desired him to give him the goods. Somerville, who was called as a witness by plaintiff, had in his presence agreed to become liable for the goods which he received. Plaintiff denied having offered to become responsible. Mr Home, who appeared for plaintiff, contended that this action came under the Statute of Prauds, and therefore, it was necessary that plaintiff should have given his consent in writing. Dr Giles ruled that the nature of the agreement did not come under the Statute of Frauds, and therefore gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. WARDEN'S COURT. Thursday, February 22. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden ) Hutchison v. Stapleton. This was the re-hearing of a case before assessors upon the application of defendant. Mr Home appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Gillespie for defendant. Dr Giles said it was not his intention to allow non-professional men to conduct cases in the Court; he did this without individual prejudice, but he had made up his mind to follow up the rule. Mr Gillespie endeavored to remonstrate, but the Warden stated that his intentions were unalterably fixed in the matter. Iu the former case plaintiff had obtained a decree of forfeiture against defendant for a claim, situated at the Nine Mile beach, and the assessors in the present case confirmed the former decision. Robertson v. Jenkins.—lllegal possession of some mining property situated at the six mile. Defendant

claimed the right to use the dams iu question, he having rented thoui for six mouths. An agreement was produced which stated that the tenure of tho lease expired upon the property being sold. Jenkins stated that when he signed the agreement the clause relating to the terms of the lease expiring upon the salo of the property was not a portion of it, and that it had been place 1 upon tho agreement since it was put in tho clerk of court's hands at Brighton. Dr Giles said that, in the face of the agreement before him, he could not do otherwise than give judgment for plaintiff, although defendant had stated perhaps rashly that the agreement had been tampered with ; if that were the case he might cause an investigation into the matter. Mouat v. Cronin.—Plaintiff sued for a dissolution of partnership in a water-race. Mr G-illespie appeared for plaintiff, and Air Home for defendant. The evidence went to prove a partnership in a water-race, and in consequeueo of a disagreement plaintill' now sought to have the partnership dissolved. At the close of the plaintiff's case the Warden decided that he had not established his case, and therefore gave judgment for defendant with costs.