RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
Friday, April 23. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Joseph Elston admitted lie was a little the worse - for drink, but denied the charges of being disorderly, committing a broach of the peace, and resisting the arresting constable. Constable Rowse said he saw the prisoner at the Methven railway station on Thursday, and the man was very drunk. On this account the station-master refused to allow him to go by the train, whereupon prisoner struck the stationmaster, and witness arrested him. On arriving at the Rakaia police ’ station, piisoner pulled witness’ whiskers and otherwise assaulted him. His Worship fined the prisoner LI for being drunk and disorderly, or 48 hours’ imprisonment; for striking the stationmaster L2, or 96 hours’ imprisonment; and a like penalty or the alternative for assaulting the constable.
CIVIL CASES. Quill v. Wilson. —Claim L 7 ICs. Bd. for board. Judgment by default, for plaintiff, with costs, 9s. Quill v. Catlin.—Claim Ll 3 9s. Gd., balance of account for board. Judgment by default, for plaintiff, with costs IGs. Quill v. Buchanan.—Claim, Lll Gs, Gd, for goods supplied. Mr. Branson for plaintiff. Plaintiff pleaded non-liability, neither having received the goods nor given any orders for their delivery. An adjournment was granted till next Court day, on the application of the defendant, so as to bring witnesses to prove his defence.
Johnson v. Smith.—Mr. Holmes for plaintiff This was a claim for LIOO, less TJ 6s. Bd., which the plaintiff abandoned, so as to bring the amount within the jurisdiction of the Court. After the accounts had been gone into, however, it was found that L9B Os. 3d. was the amount really claimed. A set-off to the amount of L 33 13s. was put in, which left a balance of L 64 7s. 3d., judgment for which was given, with costs, L 6. Mr. Holmes applied'for immediate execution, which his Worship granted. Greenaway v. Taylor.—Judgment summons for L3O 4s. Mr. Purnell appeared for plaintiff. An attempt was made by a member of a local firm of commission agents to make a statement on behalf of the defendant, who was not in Court. Mr. Purnell strongly deprecated such conduct, and drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that such action on the part of non-professional men was becoming too common. Mr, Branson also pointed out to his Worship certain objectionable conduct by the same local firm, which was entirely at variance with the practice of the Court. His Worship said that the remedy lay with the bar, an expression of opinion in which Mr. Branson acquiesced, remarking that more would be heard of the matter.
Concerning the case of Greenaway v. Taylor, Mr. Purnell said that since judgment had been given for the plaintiff, the defendant had given a bill of sale over his property. Mr*. Purnell submitted that such an action was tantamount to contempt of Court, and pressed for severe punishment. His Worship gave an order for the money to be paid within one week, or the defendant to be imprisoned for three months. The Court then adjourned.
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 91, 24 April 1880
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 91, 24 April 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.