RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1014, 18 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, October 15. (Before Joseph Giles. Esq., E.M.) Two inebriates were fined in the usual penalty. David Nicholas, for breach of the Constabulary Ordinance, was fined 40s. A similar charge against Frank Spence was adjourned for a week. Police v. H. W. Maguire and John P. Davis —Charge of provoking breach of the peace, and causing an obstruction in the public streets, on the afternoon of Friday the -Ifh inst. George Carruthers, Bailiff of the Court and constable, deposed that on the day in question he saw defendants fighting in Lytteltou street, near Sheehan's Hotel, Davis being very drunk, falling repeatedly, and Maguire striking him when down. Witness interfered and separated them. There were thirty or forty persons present and the door of Sheahan's Hotel was closed, as if to keep out the combatants.

By Maguire : Was not pressed to bring the case before the Court. Beported the occurrence voluntarily at the camp, as a matter of duty, and had never recommended any one else to take action against you. Charles Wilkins, gave evidence as to seeing, while on the top*of a house in Lyttelton street, defendants wrestling in the street and some people standing around.

By Maguire : Saw something like a blow struck. Can't say you were skylarking. It was more like fighting. The affair lasted about three minutes and attracted a few people, passers by and residents in the street.

Arthur Ledbury saw the disturbance, which was caused by defendants pulling and hauling each other in the street in a drunken squabble and Davis fell in consequence. By Maguire : Don't think Davis's fall was caused by a blow from you. The affair lasted only a few minutes.

Henry Casey —Saw the occurrence while walking in Palmerston street, Maguire and Davis both had their coats off and were wrestling, and persons in the street stopped and looked on. Afterwards Carruthers tapped Maguire on the shoulder as he was standing quietly near the hotel. J. A. Maguire—Brother of one of the defendants, attempted to prove that the police had been incited to bring the case forward by a malicious feeling against his brother and himself, but the Court objected to any evidence other than actual facts.

The defendant Davis said Maguire did not strike him, and that constable Meredith, in serving the summons, had said " pitch all you can against him," meaning Maguire. The defendant Maguire made a statement to the effect that personal ill feeling had prompted the action of the police, and drew attention to the point that proceedings had not been commenced until several days after the alleged breach of the peace.

The Court said as there was no evidence to show which of the defendants commenced the row, it would be necessary therefore to treat each ono alike, but from what was known of Maguire, as a frequent offender before the Court for rowdy and disgraceful conduct, the presumption was against him more than Davis. They were both fined 20s and costs, or three days imprisonment. Lewis Sweet v. T. J. Jones, and T. J. Jones v. Lewis Sweet—Charge and counter charge of assault at Mokinui. In this case Sweet, as complainant, deposed that on Wednesday the 9th instant Jones came to his place at Mokinui and complained against him for raising an objection to his application for an agricultural lease of ground on the other side of the river, and threatened to make him tremble ; thereupon violently seizing hold of complainants whiskers, and knocking his hat off. Violent words followed and Jones challenged him to come out and fight, which complainant declined. Jones then asked for a statement of standing account between them which Sweet made out and tendered to him.

By Jones: Tou assaulted me, dragging my whiskers, and striking me, and also pushing me back against the wainscot of the bar room. After the affair was over you asked me to drink, but I would not, you had a drink yourself. Tour pipe was broken in the struggle, and the pieces fell on the floor. My fist did not break it. There had been little or no amimosity between us previously.

Mary Ann Smith Deposed that Jones came into Sweet's Bar and spoke about the objection made to his lease. He said in spite of Sweet, Garvan, or the Government the buildings on the ground should not be removed. He said also " I'll break your licence," "I'll make you tremble," "I'll get shut of you." He then struck Sweet with his fist, knocking against the wall, witness then interfered, and Jones called her filthy names, and pushed her back. By Jones: You called for a drink after the row was over, and paid for it. Sweet told you he had objected to your application for a lease of the ground because you had refused to allow the removal of buildings thereon Sweet never went behind the - bar except to get his book to make up your account. Might have seen the pieces of your pipe on the ground. Saw " hirsute appendages " part of ■Sweet's beard scattered about, gathered them up, and now produce them— '■ fragments produced, about a handful. Constable Gorman was called, but could give no evidence as to actual facts of the case.

T. J. Jones, In defence, said he had gone to Sweet's to get hia account, for which he had previously sent, a conversation arose about the objection made to his lease, and Sweet said that he, Jones, should never rent a sod at Mokinui. Defendant had a drink and then angry words followed. Sweet came from behind the bar and struck him, broke his pipe, and tore his shirt to ribbons, thereupon he, Jones, took hold of Sweet by the beard and pulled some of the hairs out. William Miller—Had gone with Jones to the house shortly after the row, but saw nothing displaced or broken, except Jones's pipe. Had previously, by Jones's directions, called there for Sweet's account against him, which he did not obtain. The Court held that the assault by Jones in the first instance had been proved, although the evidence as to the after assault by Sweet, was not clear. The case against Sweet was therefore dismissed, and considering the distance of the place from police protection, and the nature of the threats used by Jones, he would be fined 40s, and be bound in his own recognisance of £2O to keep the peace for three months. CITIL CASES. M'Padden v. Andrew JohnstonClaim for £l2 7s 3d. No appearance of defendant. Proof was given of service of summons at premises last occupied by defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs, 19s. Linley and others v. Wm. Morris — Mr Fisher, on behalf of plaintiffs, applied for enlargement of time for service of summons. G-ranted. Peter Nelson v. William FerrisClaim for £3l 10s. Work and labor at £4 per week, on the first section of the Inangahua road. Graves and Fleming v. Same —Claim for £23 16s 6d. Goods sold and" supplied. Stitt Brothers t. same—Claim for £35 13s 4d. Balance due for goods supplied and money lent. Linley and others v same—Claim for £2l 4s Id. Boat freight. Thomas Donohoe v. same—Claim for £36 7s 6. Labor at 12s per day. 8.. Flanagan v. same—Claim for £37 Bs. 59 days work at 12s per day. R. Crowle v. same—Claim for £39 16s 6d for 63 days 3 hours work at 12s per day. S. Bitches v. Same —Claim for £39. G5 days work at 12s.

C. E. D. Wilson v. same—Claim for £39 6s. 65-| days work at 12s. James Morgan v. same—Claim for £4O 19s. 68£ days work at 12s.

J. Nattras v. same—Claim for £43 6s Sd. 65 days work at the rate of £4 per week.

James Donlan v. same—Claim for £3l 16s. 58 days work at 12s. Edward Stutts v. Same —Claim for £ls osSd. 1-1 days sawing at £1 per week, and 10 days labor at 12s. John Leslie v. same—Claim for £25 10s. 42% days work at 12s.

John Cacutt v. same—Claim for £SO lis 2d. Balance due on contract for clearing, forming, and gravelling 10 chains of road at £5 5s per chain, and £S extras. J. It. M'Donald v. same—Claim for £4l 2s. 6Si- days work at 12s.

Mr Fisher conducted the foregoing cases on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant did not appear. Proof of service of summons in each case at premises last occupied by the defendant, was sworn to by bailiff of the Court, and judgment was recorded in each instance for the amount claimed, together with costs and counsel's fee. R. Carne v. W. Ferris. No appearance, struck out. C. Minderman v. same. On Mr Fisher's application, the summons herein was enlarged for service. J. & S. Shelley v. same—Claim for £36 13 4d. Work and labor on road contract. Mr Fisher on behalf of plaintiffs in the foregoing cases, raised an objection that plaintiffs were actually mates with Ferris in the contract, and that recognition of their claim would prejudice the rights of his clients. Plaintiffs pleaded that their names had never appeared on the contract bond between H'erris and the government, and that no partnership agreement bad ever existed between them, but merely a verbal understanding to the effect that the tender to be put in should be in the joint names of Ferris aad themselves. Instead of this the defendant Ferris tendered in his own name, and they therefore had no other standing with bim than wagesmen. The plea was overruled, and a nonsuit recorded. Trocks v. Ashton—Claim for £ls 10s. "Wages due. No appearance of defendant. Judgment given for full amount and costs. Barringer v. Buller Towing Track Company—-£35. Balance due for wages. Amount paid into Court. WE3TPORT WARDEN'S COURT. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) Tuesday, October 15. Pierce v. Graham—Claim for £ls wages as miner at £1 per week. Mr Fisher for plaintiff. This case had been adjourned to allow defendant to file statement of alleged contra payments. "Various items on the list produced were admitted by plaintiff; to others he demurred. After lengthy discussion and explanations on either side, judgment was given for the defendant, with costs. Walters v. Jamieson. Claim for £35 damages for alleged breach of agreement to carry out certain mining work at Caledonian Terrace, and nontransfer of right thereto to plaintiff. Judgment for defendant with costs.