RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
AS33URTOJ—T'j:«a vv, Fob. It (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) HOI«E STSALISO.
John O’Brien was charged with stealing a horse, the property of Samuel Brown, vain fid at L2O. Mr. O’Reilly for defendant.
Sergeant Pratt, who prosecuted, said complaint was made to the police that a horse, saddle, and bridle had been stolon from the Royal Hotel on the evening of February Sth, and witness arrested prisoner on Saturday last, and charged him with the offence. He said he know nothing about it.
Samuel Brown, sworn—l am a farmer residing at Wakanui. On the Bth inst. I wont to the yard at the Royal Hotel, in Ashburton, about 8 p.m. and tied my horse up, and left him there. ■ About 9.30 I returned, and the horse was gone. -1 reported the loss nest day to the police. I next saw the horse tethered at Little’s at the Hinds. Mr. Little gave mo possession of him, T 1 e horse is worth L2O. I gave nobody permission to take the horse. Robert Liitle, hotel keeper,. Hinds, sworn —I know prisoner. lie came to my stables about half-past 7 on the 9th inst., and asked me if I wanted to buy a horse. 1 first said “No.” Ho said he was hard up and wanted to sell the horse. I then ashed him where ho got the horse. He said from his brother at Mosgiel, 12 miles from Dunedin. He wanted L2O for the horse, and I refused to give it. He afterwards offered me the horse for LlB, and I went to look at the saddle and bridle. I gave him LI7 Us. for the horse. 1 pro duce the receipt. He signed his name John B. Kirk. I handed the horse over to the lust witness. lam confident prisoner is the same man I bought the horse from. He has a scar ou his neck. Sergeant- Pratt applied for a remand for further identification of the pris mer, and asked that bail should be refused, as he had attempted to escape from custody. The case was then remanded for eight days, and bail was allowed prisoner in L2OO and two sureties of LIOO each. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for amount of claim was given, with costs in the following cases : Moynihan v. N. Fitzgerald, L 59 14s. 6d ; Boyle v. C. Branson, L 9 18s. ; M'Laughlin v. Taylor, LSI 2s. 3d ; Moynihan v. D. Fitzgerald, L‘s 3s. 6d ; Griffon and Ibell v. Bonham, Li I ss. 9d ; Friedlander v. Patten, L 33 2s. 81. Case adjourned till March 2, defendant paying costs. SPROUTED SEED PAULEY. Jameson Bros. v. E. A. Field, claim LSB 3s. 4d. Mr. Scott for plaintiff; Mr, Purnell for defendant. Georg! Jameson, grain merchant, deponed—Defendant came to me in October to purchase barley. I had sold out at the time, and told him I believed I could get some from the same farm at Temuka, as I had previously sold from. Did not show him any sample. He said he w mid take 2GO bushels if I got it at once. I sent for it, and it was delivered in the trucks at Saunders’ mill. 1 sold about 500 sacks of the same barley to other farmers, and have had no complaints as to its quality for seed. I know defendant’s farm. It is light land. By Mr. Purnell—l ordered the barley from Mr. Marcroft to bo of the same quality as I had had from him previously. 1 did not see it when it came up. Mr. Field complained of the quality, and I made a reduction of 3d. per bushel. He told mo it was for seed. William M-ircroft, farmer, Temuka, deponed—l sold nearly all my barley last year through Mr. Jameson. It all grew in one paddock, and was of similar quality. I sowed some last year, and have harvested it, and it is a good crop. By Mr. Parnell—l did not see the barley packed, but it must have been the same, as there was none other to pack. There was no smut in it. It may have been discolored. John Carter, farmer, Tiuwald, deponed to having bought two lots of barley from Jameson last year. It was sold as Marcroft’s. The result of the crop grown from it has been very good. Other evidence was taken to prove that seed barley bought from Jameson Bros, had resulted satisfactorily. For the defence, Mr. Purnell called E. A. Field, farmer, fieafield—l went to Mr. Jameson to buy some seed barley, and he showed me a sample which I produce. I gave him an order for enough to sow 175 acres. The price was to be 4s. (3d. per bushel. It was brought to my place and there was a very large quantity of smut in it. I pickled it. The first bags I opened did not appear to have been heated. Some of it opened afterwards was so heated that it was growing. The barley was sown, and the crop is not worth catting, and it cannot now arrive at maturity, as there is not enough strength in the grain. It is only a foot high, and I could not reap it. The land was specially prepared for barley and is of good quality. On the adjoining land a 30 bushel crop has been cut this year. By Mr. Scott— l have never grown barley before. I do not call myself a skilled farmer. I can hardly describe what smut is. The description was black smut in the barley. When it came to the mill 1 requested Mr. Saunders to pickle it, but I took it away. It was pickled by a skilled farmer. I should imagine the whole of the grain had sprouted more or less. Some of the sacks had been wet and the grain on the wet side had grown. One of the sacks burst, being so rotten. Osborne’s crop of 25 bushels to the acre, was sown some time before mine, but Hardwick’s, which gave a yield of 35 bushels, was sown at the same time.
By the Court—l think the grain must have got heated in the stack and caused the rotting of the sacks. Mr. Marcroft recalled : The barley was dry when thrashed, and had not sprouted. There are two kinds of smut in barley—one known as black ears, which turns to a kind of dust, is broken in the threshing, and usually discolors the grain ; the other attacks the grain and damages the quality. Alfi ed Saunders, sworn —I received instructions from Mr. Jameson on the Bth or 9th October to taka delivery of some barley for Mr. Field. It came in a truck on the 10th. Mr. Field's men came for it on the 12th, and I detected it to be smutty by the smell. It seemed as if it had been on a damp floor, or on the ground.
By Mr. Scott —I examined the barley on the truck. The roots of .the barley wore growing through some of the sacks. I examined most of the sacks with a sampler, and it was all smutty, and five or six bags were badly grown. The barley would be no use for malting. Smutty seed will produce smutty barley. Arthur Smith, clerk,, sworn—l saw some of the barley on Field's farm, and some was pretty good and some was matted together. 1 have seen the crop. It is quite a failure. By Mr. Scott—What was matted was shot out ready for pickling. John Hardwick, a farmer of 40 years’ experience, deposed to having sowed the barley in question. It had been hosted in the stack, or in the sacks. I used last year three times as much bluestone on my seed as Mr. Field did, and I have got 28 bushels to the acre. The laud was properly worked for barley, and ought tq have given a good crop. The crop would nqt pay to cut, By Mr. Scott—l sowed lh bushels to the acre on about IQ3 acres'. The sacks had been wet, and got dry again. I kqow the farm for three years. Last year it had wheat on, and the year before tusgockg. I don’t call them grass, I know hoiy much bluestone he put in the barley, because he got it from me. He put in liounces, and I put four ounces to the
bushel. Both lots wore sowed in October. I consider it a good time. Isaac Osborne gave evidence as to the rotten state of the sacks and the grown apnearanco of the barley, and the presence of amat in it. J '. After Counsel had addressed the Bench, His Worship said the evidence was very contradictory. The plaintiffs witnesses swore unanimously to the good condition of the barley. The defendant’s witnesses wore equally unanimous as to the fact that the seed had germinated, and that the young roots were protruding through the ba"s.° Seed once germinated will rot germinate again, and it was how far the defendant had himself to the damage by sowing seed palpably bad. The seed sown in a bad state had been pointed out to defendant by the man bo had employed, but it was nevertheless sown, and there were sufficient opportunities given to-defendant to decline the barley if. ho had so wished. But he had not taken these opportunities, and could not now come into Court to repudiate the bargain. The judgment would therefore he for the plaintiff with costs of Court and witnesscss. A COSTLY 3s. Longheach Road District v. White. Claim 35., for rates. Mr. Purnell for plaintiff, Mr. Harris for defendfmt, who claimed a nonsuit on the the plaintiffs were wrongly described.' Mr. Purnell applied to have the name altered to the “ Road Board of the Longheach District,” which his Worship granted and the transposition made all the difference. W. J. Cuthbert, Collector for the district proved the non-payment of the rates and produced the roll book as evidence. Mr. Harris contended it was necessary to produce the valuation roll. Mr, Purnell quoted clause 44 of the Rating Act to prove that the rate book was sufficient evidence. The Magistrate Slid that all that was necessary for the collector to prove was that the rate list had been duly signed by throe members of the Board. This was done, and Mr. Harris then took objection to the name on the roll as being “ White W.and that was not a sufficient description as “W.” was not a name in the meaning of the Act; further the occupation column was not filled in. Mr. Cuthbert said he could not swear the “ White ” in Court was the identical man mentioned in the rate list. He had posted the usual notice on Nov. 14. Mr. Purnell said he could easily 7 prove the identity of the person mentioned in the list with defendant, and would ask leave to put Mr. White in the witness box. . William Winsbury White, sworn —l am not, nor ever was owner or occupier of section 12 Tiuwald.
By Mr. Purnell—l received a notice from the Longheach Road Board, but don’t know what it was for. I have never held any property there. Plaintiffs were nonsuited with costs. Harris and Ireland v. Baker and Brown. —Adjourned till Friday. The Court then adjourned. Wednesday, Feb. 25. (Before C. Percy Cox, Esq., and Dr. Trevor, JJ. P.) rL VOINO AN OBira'JGTION ON THE BMLWAY. Henry Mason and William Palmer, two boy's about 14 years of age, were charged with having placed pieces of wood across the rails on the Rakaia-Methven railway. Frederick Back, manager of railways, Christchurch, deponed. Shortly afterll a.m., yesterday, I was on an engine travelling from Rakaia to Methven, and a short distance from Rakaia I and others on the engine noticed an obstruction on the rails, and I removed from them two pieces of manuka wood. Tiie two pieces produced are exactly 7 like those jl picked off the rails. There was -Jr gap in the fence near the spot, and a wliare close by, and we found the two lads now in Court in the bunks. I charged them with having placed the wood on the rails, and they admitted having done so, and promised if I let them off they would never do it again. I informed the constable who was in the train, and he arrested them. There was a carriage and truck attached to the engine with about 20 passengers in them. The obstruction was sufficient to have thrown the engine off the line. There has been traffic on the line, but it will not be formally opened till to-morrow. The wood could not liave been accidentally placed in the position we found it, as it was laid straight across the rails. Ltbok the two pieces into the hut and lefWlievn there. John Dickenson, locomotive foreman, Christchurch, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and further stated that he had seen some boys running , towards two huts when about half a mile from the spot on which the obstructions weie placed. Mr. Back and himself got off the engine and found the pieces of wood produced carefully placed on the rails. The timber would have passed under the cow-catcher, and if it did not throw the engine off, would have probably broken a spring. Went in the hut and found the two boys now in Court hid away, and they said they would never “ do it again.” William Jclfs, fireman, sworn —When the train was about half a mile from where the obstructions were found, I saw two boys run out of the whare, stoop down, and then run back again, and as the train approached I saw two pieces of wood on the rails.
Peregrine Robert Deardon, farmer, sworn—The prisoner Palmer is in my employ as cook, and Mason is employed by some contractors engaged by mo. One of the pieces of timber I recognise as a peg 1 had been using in chaining. Wm. Rouse, constable, deponed to having arrested the prisoners in one of the huts. The boy Palmer showed me a piece of wood which he said they had placed on the line, and said they thought it was only a truck coming. I took the long piece of wood with me. The train went on to Methven, and on our return wo picked up the other. When I was locking the prisoners up, I aimer said that each had placed one piece of wood on the rails. This closed the case.
Mr. Dearden said, in defence, that the line was not open for traffic as yet, and that his men had been in the habit of stopping the trollies to get a ride to Rakaia. He would ask the Bench to deal summarily with the case. The Bench said the offence was a very serious one, and they could not deal with , it that way. They decided to send*the case to a higher court, and committed the boys for filial, bail being allowed,; eachprisoner to find two sureties at LSO each. The Court then adjourned. 1
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 66, 26 February 1880
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 66, 26 February 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.