RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROSS.

West Coast Times, Issue 7593, 10 January 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROSS.

(Before Major KeddeU, 3.M.) CRIMINAL JUEISDICTIOSf. HA.VIL V, HANB4HAN. Information for rescuing ca tie while being driven to a pound by the in forroant. Mr Purkiss appeared for tfao accused. John Havill dep ised that while he was driving the cattle of tbe acoused, which had been trespassing on his land at Robs Flat, the accused forcibly re ' scned them from hia possession. Isaac Le deposed that he was assisting Havill to impound the cattle when the accused prevented them. Mr Purkiss took the point that there waß no proof that there was a public pound in Rosa, consequently the informant might, have been doing an illegal action in taking possession of the cattle. His Worship upheld the objection and dismissed the case with a caution, EYAN V. EOBEBTB. The Informant, Catherine Eyan, deposed that Mrsßoberts waß in the habit of usiug insulting and indecent language every time they met in the street. The matter came to a climax about the middle of November last, wben Mrs Roberts assaulted ber in a back street. (The language which is unfit for pnbliea-

ion was written and handed to the Court), To Mr Purkiss : I never retaliated in ,ny way. I did not say acythiog to Mrs Joberty, I «i«ayd pay 23» in tne pound indtpVs soin'ei^ing eyerjjbody does not 10. ; Ada Lintop deposed that about the niddle of Novembe r las' she was walking lown tlie street with Mrs Ryan wbea Mrs Robeits began abus.ng Mrs .iyan, calling tier names. To Mr Purkisa : Mrs Byan did not say anything to Vlr Roberts. lam a boarder with Mrs Ryaa. Mn Kae was called bid knew nothing about the case, For the defence, "»5r Pii'ki a s called John Roberts, M, Coug'ilan and Mrs Robeits who denitd in toio the evidence of The informant. His Worship said that owin» to the contradictory natu.e ot the tiviicnce he woul' J \ ds^is" the case. In his opinion one was a^ bad as the other. TALBOT V. MINAHAN. Mr MuicLch appearing hit both parties» asked for adjournment tillnexl Oourt diy. — G-ra ited. HODGSON V. CLAEA MINAHAN. Mr Murdoca f<"»r plaintiff, said 'his wa3 an action fur damages laid itklit rec.ion 19 of "The Bog Reshtrauo.. Act, 1830," for dmint^e do°e to sheep beiongidg tG the plaint'ff by defendant's does, ior w ioh the pKintiff claimed £12 l'la. Me briefly explained the circumstan.' s, but asked tbat tbe case should bs allowed to stand

(See fourth ? r". ?

over to next Court day and as there were 14 witnesses to be called, that it should be placed first on the list for that day so that all evidence could be heard on the Same day. Mr Purkies for the defendant agreed to the adjournment which warranted, costs of tbe day's hearing to be costs in the case. The Queen v. Halligan and Smith ; same v. Carstens ; same v. Petrie. Actions for recovery of arreara of rent of gold mining leases. Mr Murdoch appeared for the defendants in ail cases and asked for an adjournment as he had just received instructions in the oases when ia Ross and the decision ia tbese— as they were, he considerad, mere test cases — would involve large amounts of money in all nv'ning districts in New Zealand. He would urge several technioal objections which he thought would be fatal to the present actions, but would ask for an adjournment to look up authorities. His Worship granted the adjournment and tbe Court then closed.