RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VII, Issue 1044, 7 February 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Febkuart 4. (Before Joseph Giles. Esq., R.M.) J. A. Maguire v. Rebecca Smith aud Rebecca Smith v. J. A. Maguire.— Two charges of assault, alleged to have been committed on the 23th instant. Defendant in either case denied the charge. In evidence J. A. Maguire deposed that he had called at Mrs Smith's hotel to enquire for a carpenter, whereupon she hud called him in, and on his declining to enter had struck him on the face as he stood in the door, and called him a robbing dog, aud kicked him out The blow given him caused a cut inside his jaw and loosened several teeth. Complainant alleged that he did not retaliate, hat simply said to Mrs Smith " I'll warm you for this." Henry Maguire swore that he was within fifteen feet of the house, and saw Mrs Smith strike complainant on the jaw. Rebecca Smith said the previous complainant had spoken insulting words to her and she had called him the " essence of a loafer," whereuoon he struck at her, but she had never lifted hand or foot against him. Two witnesses living in Mr Smith's house had seen her como into a back room from the bar crying and saying Maguire had struck her. Cross-examined by J. A. Maguire, both said there was a slight mark, as from a blow, on her forehead, and that she was " really and truly crying." The Court, from the evidence, was not prepared to pronounce who first commenced the disturbance, and dismissed both cases, complainants paving their own costs. CITTL CASES. Bailie and Humphrey v. Ellen Cloisry.—Claim on a certain promissory note. No appearance of defendant. Judgment deferred. D. Roberts v. Crowle and Jacobsen. —Claim for £7. Balance of wages as boatman at £5 per through trip, and £6 5s where freight was more than once laden. Defendants had paid £3 into Court, aud disputed further liability. Plaintiff's evidence was not dear as to date of items charged or exact balance due at any particular time. Judgment was therefore given for amount paid in, defendants being allowed expenses of attendance. Brown v. Ward.—Claim for £3 Balance of account. Debt admitted. Order made for payment by weekly instalments of 10s. Brown v. Annett.—Claim for £7 6s No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed aud costs. H. London v. James Olive.—Claim on dishonored promissory note. Defendant, had paid £2 8s into Court, aud disputed further liability. The dispute arose on two various accounts having been kept against the defendant, and the alleged giving of two

promissory notes, which defendant positively domed. The ovidohce given was contradictory. Judgment was recorded for amount paid in, less defendant's costs, £l. .T. A. Maguire v. Rebecca Smith.— Mr Fisher appeared for plaintiff. Claim for £4O, damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of broach of coni racfc on part of defendant in the nnn completion a building let to plaintiff. In evidence it appeared that plaintiff had become a tenant of a building formerly occupied by defendant aB an hotel; plaintiff paying a yearly rental of £7B per annum. Three months rent bad been paid in advance, and a stamped agreement was put in as evidence, showing that defendant had agreed to make certain additions to the house to bring it within the conditions of the New Licensing Act; which conditions had been as yet not fully completed, whorefore plaintiff claimed damages by reason of his license being imperilled and by loss of business for want of proper accommodation for travellers ; estimating his actual loss at £7l for six weeks, and £2O by being prevented giving a ball at Christmas time; although now seeking to recover £4O only. _ . The evidence of several witnesses was given to prove that the building was not yet completed. Defendant pleaded that a verbal understanding had been arrived at between herself and plaintiff, that if the shell of the additional building was put up at her expense the plaintiff would do the inside work at his leisure. She pleaded also that he had meddled with the original plan of the building, appropriated part of the material to his own use, and by his lack of" skill as an architect had spoiled the building and caused many of the defects complainec nf.

01. By Court: Maguire had obtained a license for the house, and was now carrying on business. Plaintiff re-called : Swore positively that he had not made any alterations without the express consent of the defendant, or in variance with terms of original agreement. Had commenced business under Mrs Smith's licence on the 20th December, subject to compliance with New Licensing Acton Ist January following. The Court ruled that the agreement, taken with the evidence of witnesses as to its'interpretation by both parties, narrowed the question at issue down to the interpretation of the words " fit for occupation as an hotel." Compliance with the terms of the New Licensing Ordinance was not essential except on a license granted after Ist January, and therefore the words must be (interpreted in the ordinary sense. Plai.itnT was therefore not entitled to judgment on speculative damages, but merely for noncompliance by defendant with agreement for building. Judgment was given for £lO and costs. Lavette' v, J. Mason.—Judgment summons. No appearance of defendant. Order made for payment by instalments of £1 per week, or in default of payment six weeks imprisonment. <*. WE3TPORT WARDEN'S COURT. Tuesday, February 4. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Wardea.) M'Leod and Bossard v. Braithwaite. —Mr Fisher for complainants. The Warden notified that before hearing evidence he would inspect the "round in dispute, and adjourned the Court uutil Wednesday, at 11 a.m. Wednesday, February 5. M'Leod and Bossard v. Braithwaite. —Action to recover damages £34 10s on the pleas : 1, That the complainants are holders of a certain goldmining lease on Caledonian Terrace, worked by ground sluicing, and for which they hold a registered race. 2, That the defendant by the negligent and careless manner in which he has worked his claim, has damaged the complainants claim b> having worked under some adjoining ground and precipitated the hill side into the tail race. 3, That the defendants had lost much time and had beeu compelled to stop work in consequence. After hearing lengthy evidence on either side, judgment was «;iven for defendant with costs, £'.) 15s. APPLICATIONS. Farrell and three others, for water race at Christmas Terrace. Granted. Braithwaite and Nelson.—Protection for six mouths for claim at Middle Terrace, to allow another party to work out their claim so as to allow applicants to bring in tail-race without encroaching upon them. Objected to by M'Leod and Bossard on the plea that " applicants only wanted to shepherd until such time as wo (objectors) get our claim worked to their boundary, and for the sake of an opportunity to prevent us working our ground." Postponed for one week to give time for amicable arrangement.