RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1018, 1 November 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Octobee 29. (Before Joseph G-iles. Esq., E.M.) MALICIOUS DAMAGE OF PEOPEBTY AT MOHIKINUL. Joshua Annett and Ann Coleman charged with this offence, on the complaint of Lewis Sweet, pleaded not guilty. The complainant deposed that on the 14th instant he had attended the Westport court as complainant in the assault case—Sweet v Jones, and on his return had found the lamp over his house door broken, also a fan light and the windows of the house smashed and certain fowls, and a pig—his property, killed. Benjamin Runlett deposed that on the 14th instant, while Sweet was preparing to start for Westport, Annett and Jones came down the street, and opposite Sweet's door Annett began blowing a horn, and that when Swee# and Mary Ann Smith started for Westport Annett followed them down the street, blowing the horn and doing what he could to annoy them; that afterwards Annett came back to Sweet's house and used threatening language to the witness. Two or threo hours afterwards witness saw Annett

stoning Sweet's pigs in tbe street, am a man named Johnson went out witl Annett to see what damage the pigi had done in Annett's garden. Cole man, the other defendant, then cam( to Sweet's house and threw a stone into the bar at witness, and then fol lowed him into the dining room, anc threw another stone, whereupon de fendant put her out of the house, anc she then threw stones through the far light. Witness had closed the dooi against her but Anueb tried to force i; open, challenging witness to fight sayinec "he would be hung for him.' Afterwards Annett tried to burst h the back door, Coleman inciting hirr to attack witness, and using man] filthy expressions. They then went away threatening to kill everything Sweet had, and witness saw Colemat stoning Sweet's fowls running in the 3treet. Twenty minutes afterward) Annett again came back and tried t( burst in the doors, regardless of warn ings given him by a man named John son, who was in the house at the time Coleman meanwhile stoning a Uttl< log chained up, and afterward stoning Sweet's pigs and geese Whenever witness attempted to gel mtside Annett would attack him, and ;ause witness to retreat. This lasted m and off for about two hours, and nore window panes and Bashes were broken by stones thrown. Witness hen got away at the back and wenl ;o the terrace for men to help prot6d Sweet's property, and on returning law Annett and Coleman still throwing itones, and attempting to break opei he door, and one thrown by Colemar imashed tbe lamp outside, Cross examined by Annet: Do no! •ecollect challenging you to fight, bu' •ecollect having words some tirao pre uously on the wharf. On one-oeca lion you and Plannigan and another nan challenged me to come out anc ight either one or the other. Didnoi 16 so, not caring to face three at ence Swear you threw stones o,nd stood :lose to the windows as they were 3roken. Am not known at the Siokinui as the black loafer. I wort or Sweet, looking after his boat anc lometimes minding his house. Was nside the house during the attack, bu jould see who broke the windows Cannot iwear there was no one but rourgelf and Coleman in the street. Believe other people were there. It vas not Jones' or Blackburn's children vho broke the lamp. I saw Annie Coleman do it.

By Coleman: I did not pull your back hair or call your child a bastard, or threaten to break its bones, or say I would throw it in the river. I swear you broke the lamp. I put you out of the house wihh as little force as possible.

C. Moore Johnstone, who is affected with deafness, gave evidence from notes he had written shortly after the occurrence. This statement corroborating the evidence of previous witness. Cross-examined by Annett. Recollect going with you to see the damage done by the pigs in your garden. Heard some one screaming and you suddenly went back. Did not see Runlett holding Coleman by the hair of her bead ; he put her very gently out of the honse. Don't remember telling Sweet that Ben and I tried to ' double bank you.' Sweet's pigs have got on your ground many times because the fence is defective. Never saw you throw any stones, but saw you flourishing a stick. Don't know that Kunlett is the chief cause of disturbances at Sweet's.

John Peterson miner, also gave strongly corroborative evidence as to the annoyance early in the morning, and that the complainant had advised them all to take no notice of it. In the evening he had, at Eunlett's request, gone to help to protect Sweet's property, and then witnessed the attack as related by the previous deponents. By Annett—Recollect Ben Eunlett once challenging you to fight near my hut, but do not recollect him threatening to shoot you with a pepper box revolver. Did not see you throw stones, but saw you pick up one and batter the door with it. Louis Davieaux, called by the defendants, estimated the damage done to the windows at about 10a. and for the broken sashes, Bs. By complainant—Had been asked by T. Jones to look at the place and estimate the damage, but had not gone inside. Thos. Jones—Made a statement as to an estimate of the damage done, given by Mr Struthers, based upon a description and measurements furnished him by the witness. By complainant—Did not go inside the house as I was afraid to enter without police protection. In-defence Annett denied throwing any stones, and pleaded justification for any other breach of the peace, in that Eunlett had first attacked Coleman, and he had gone to protect her. Ann Coleman denied throwing stones, said that Eunlett had often insulted her, and threatened to bring her to Court for an old grudge. The Clerk of the Court, by direction of the Bench, produced the Eegister of Civil Cases, showing that in the case of Peterson against Coleman, heard on the 29th April, 1870; she had been bound over to keep the peace for six months, and fined 20s with costs £6 19s Gd. The Court stigmatised this case as a most disgraceful one on the part of the accused, and fined Annett £3 for the offence or one months imprisonment, and Coleman £5 or two months imprisonment; adjudged 40s damages, and awarded 40s each to complainant and his witnesses for costs and mileage.

The accused were also ordered to find recognizance in £SO to keep the peace, Annett for "three months, and Coleman for six.

Civil CASEB. Carey v. "W. 8. Munday—Mr Fisher for plaintiff. Claim for £lO damages breach of contract. Plaintiff alleged that defendant bad called for tenders for clearing a certain section in Kin. toul street, that he had tendered, that defendant had accepted his tender and had gone with him to his office, and got liim to sign a contract to finish the work within twelve days, that he had afterwards commenced work on the section, working a portion of two days, that on the third day some other men commenced to work there and defendant had told him that he had made a mistake and that his tender was not accepted. In -defence the defendant gave evidence that he had not closed any contract with the plaintiff, that the tender given in by plaintiff did not state any time for the completion of the work, and that all plaintiff had signed was a memorandum at the foot of the tender supplying this omission, and that the name of the parties whose tender was accepted had been posted up outside Horn's tobacconist shop, within a few minutes from the expiration of the time for receipt of tenders. By Mr Fisher—Put advertisement in the paper, but did not there state the time up to which tenders would be received- G-ot Carey's tender on Friday, and might hare asked him if he would make a good job of the work. Had received about 18 tenders in all. Carey's was for £ll. Afterwards accepted Pennialls for £8 15s, making arrangements with them to use wood they had on the other side of the river. The Court, ruling that the presumption was very strongly in favor of defendants plea, gave judgment against ' the plaintiff with costs. Grarsides v. Seawright—-No appearance. Struck out.

George Clark v. E. M'Farlane— Mr Fisher for defendant. Claim for £9 lis 6d. Payment of £G 14a had been made into Court, and the balance was objected to under the Licensing Ordinance, the items being for drinks supplied to the defendant, not being a bona Jide lodger. Judgment given for amount paid into Court. Costs of hearing, and counsel's fee being allowed defendant. Wm. Atkin's v. Joseph SullivanMr Fisher for plaintiff. Claim for £lO. damages for breach of contract, for non-delivery of a water* man's boat " Wallabi." Defendant denied liability. The plaintiff had agreed for the purchase of the boat; and had gone with defendant to Mr James Powell to draw up sale note for them, which document, according to plaintiff's statement, ran thus, " I nave this day sold to Mr Atkins the bout "Wallabi, sails, oars, masts, andalleomplete, for £10." Defendant signed this and plaintiff paid £1 deposit, but on the subsequent meeting to conclude the contract, defendant claimed that the sale was for £l7, and tore up tlie sale note and refused to give back the £1 deposit. Defendant denied selling the boat for £lO, and said he had first

asked £lB, and ultimately agreed to take £l7. He did not understand the agreement when it was first read to him, but afterwards repudiated it, and Atkin offered to pay hiin £l4 10s, as being all the money he then had, and asked for credit for the balance, 30s, which defendant refused.

James Powell.deposed that he drew out the sale note, read it to both parties, and Sullivan got the £1 deposit. On the following Monday both parties came to him and witness then asked Atkins to hand over the £9 to Sullivan, whereupon Sullivan said the price was £l7 not £lO, and tore up the sale note. Witness made

out another for £l7, which Sullivan signed, and Atkins counted out £l4 10s, asking Sullivan to take off 10s which he refused. Was certain that on the first occasion Sullivan said the price was £lO, but on the second occasion Atkins made no remark about the alteration from £lO to £l7. Mr Pisher pleaded that the defendant should be held to his first contract, there being no conclusive evidence that his client was bound by any after contract. The Court ruled that the presumptive evidence was strongly against plaintiff's claim, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs. Linley and others v. Morris—Claim for £46 14s, boating freight on goods. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 255. T. Jones y. Louis Sweet—Claim for £2 13s. Balance of account for meat supplied, and cash paid per order. Nonsuit. Brown v. Lloyd—Claim for £4 9d. Judgment confessed. Patterson v. Gething—Postponed for amendment of bill of particulars. Whyto and Pirie v. Black—Claim for £3 10s. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. Jenkins t. Tupper—Claim for £7, money lent. No appearance of defendant. Judgment given for full amount.