RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1027, 6 December 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Deceaibek. 3. (Before Joseph. G-iles. Esq., E.M.) Police v. Mary Sullivan.—Charge of wilfully and maliciously injuring a mooring buoy, lying in Lytteltou street, the property of John Munro. Defendant pleaded not guilty. John Munro gave evidence that the buoy was worth £3 or £4, that he saw it safe in its usual place on the evening of the 27th, but on the following morning found it lying in an adjoining ditch, the ends knocked in, and the inside charred as if set on fire. Soon afterwards he saw the accused knock two of the hoops off and throw them in the street. He knew her as being a quiet industrious woman when sober, but she occasionally drank took much, and then became insane.

John Brent deposed that between five and six o.clock in the morning he saw Mrs Sullivan beating in the head of the buoy, and half an hour afterwards saw it on fire. She was then standing at the door of her dwelling, and making no attempt to put out the fire.

John Jones gave corroborative evidence, and also said that he examined the buoy aud found that the head had been knocked in, and that inside a gunny bag and several pieces of wood had been placed and set fire to. The accused at that time standing near with an axe in her hand. At the request of another witness she got water and threw over the cask. About half an hour iifterwards witness saw ler battering away at it with an axe, and knocking the hoops off. She was not then sober.

Edward Quigley: Saw the btrrel on fire, there being a hole in it, from which flames and smoke were issuing. Spoke to accused, who said some one had set fire to it to burn her out. Witness went away for a short distance, but seeing that the fire might endanger adjoiuing houses, came back aud knocked in the ends of die buoy to stifle the flames.

The accused, in a rambling state-. ment denied having set ire to the buoy. The Court ruled that the evidence fully proved the indictment, and adjudged that accused should pay £3, the value of the buoy, and £1 16s costs, within one week, or in default

suffer three weeks imprisonment with hard labor. civil cases. Schulhoff v. Arenas. —Defendant did not appear - Mr Fisher applied for an adjournment on behalf of defendant. Granted. W. Harrison v. Healey; same v. Seymour; same v. James.—Further enlargement of summons was granted in each case. C. Brown v. Sarah Burrows.— '• Claim for £2 15s 2d, balance of account for gods sold and delivered. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs.

Herman London v. Joseph Jones.— Claim for =£s. No appearance of defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence showing that defendant was earning sufficient money to pay the debt, and also stated that defendant had offered to pay by instalments of £1 per week, which he, the plaintiff, was willing to accept. Judgment was given for full amount claimed and costs. Payment to be made at £1 per week, or in default defendant to suffer imprisonment for one month, T. J. Jones v. Benjamin Bunlett.— Claim for £lO, damages alleged to be sustained by reason of defendant malciousiy driving plaintiff's cattle. The defendant deposed that on Fri. day the Ist of Nov. he had seen the defendant and another man with two or three dogs mai'ching after his cattle, the men apparently carrying guns, and the dogs barking and following the cattle smartly. The cattle had a few minutes previously been quietly resting on their accustomed camping on some land applied for by com■inant under an agricultural lease, lih- on being disturbed had gone off into the bush in different directions, and had never since come back to this particular spot where they were accustomed to drink except when driven there by complainant or his men. Subsequently complainant had asked defendant his reason for chasing the cattle, but had only received abusive Teplies.

A witness named William Miller gave evidence that after the cattle had been chased away he and complainant had been three days in the bush hunting after them, and that when found they were scattered and frightened. One had to be lifted out of a bog, where it seemed to have been driven. The cattle previously had come down to the beach to drink from the river,

and always lay quietiy where they might be counted from the opposite ban k. Benjamin Runlett, in defence, stated that he crossed the river every day to get to his claim, that in going by the ■cattle his dogs had barked either at them or at the seagulls , but that he

had never set them on, nor had their barking at the cattle resulted in any injury. The Court held that the evidence failed to disclose any malicious intent •on the part of the defendant; the utmost proved being that he had allowed the dogs to bark at the cattle without attempting to prevent them. This might be considered a technical or legal trespass, but there was no

proof of substantial damage arising therefrom. Judgment was given for live shillings damages and Court. Eugene O'Conor v. W, T. "White.— Claim for £3 10s, rent of cottage. Judgment confessed. Byrne v. M'Enroe—Claim for £-i2 9s sd. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs.