RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
(Before Mr. Nugent Wood, R. M. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Alexander Campbell and David Cameron were charged.' with being drunk and disorderly. The Sergeant stated that accused were drunk, but very quiet. They had been already locked up twenty-four hours. Accused were let off with a caution. John Leasham, who was charged with alike offence, pled guilty to being intoxicated, but denied the charge of disorderly conduct. Fined 55., cr twelve hours' imprisonment. ALLEGED LARCENY. George Wilson, charged with the larceny of Ll 7, was, on the application of Sergeant Felton, remanded till to-morrow. breaches of the by-laws G. F. Martin appeared in answer to a charge of riding across a footpath without lawful excuse. Mr. Martin pleaded guilty to riding across a footpath, but alleged that he had a lawful excuse for so doing. He could not serve his customers without riding over the footpaths. Fined in a nominal penalty of Is. and costs. J. F. Butler, who did not appear, was fined ss. for allowing a cow to wander at largo. Hugh Muir pleaded guilty to a charge of allowing one mare to wander at large. The animal had been tethered, but some one had released it. Fined ss. Thomas Trevurza also contributed ss. to the Clerk of the Court for a similar offence. John Hepburn, charged with allowing three cows to wander at large was fined 2s. per head and costs. James Digby was charged with riding across a footpath without lawful excuse. Mr. Digby confessed to having: ridden across the footpath, but there was no other means of access to the premises of the Mayor, whither he was going when the charge was laid. Mr. Branson explained to his Worship that nearly twothirds of the houses in Ashburton were without any other means of access than across the footpaths. Fined Is. and costs. A FENCING SQUABBLE FROM WAKANUI.
John Corbett was charged with having on the slh January unlawfully assaulted Thomas Wilson. Mr. Branson for plaintiff ; Mr. Ireland for defendant. This was a case arising out of a fencing transaction between the parties named. Thomas Wilson, sworn—Am a farmer residing at Wakanui. Know Mr. Corbett. His land bounds mine. Mr. Corbett has been in occupation of the land about three years. Served a notice to fence on Mrs. Corbett. She refused to take it, and I dropped it at her feet The document produce is a copy of the notice served. Marked the date on at the time. It was on the 13th August. Afterwards saw Corbett about the fence, when he said he would do nothing with it for me or anyone else. Allowed him a month to take action. When the month had expired, gave Corbett a further notice to fence. After this, he commenced to fence, but it was not in accordance with the notice I originally served on him. He.did not commence to fence within the month required. There was an indifferent kind of a fence on thoground previously, but it was not in accordance with the Ordinance. The fence Then was 3ft. Gin. in height at places, but throughout was very irreg" 1 "’ u January, the ditch at 1 fence wanted in some pi and in other places ten proper depth. At that t I were deepening the dit ing in the ditch on defen fence. He told me t refused. Defendant t about. He prevented m with the work, and sai< legal enough. Defend; the shovel I was using, a from using it. I have er of the fence in accor Ordinance. By Mr. Ireland —Cai Corbett and I are bosom gaged Foreman to put : between my property amCorbett paid for the h.done. There was a high in the belief that the tei vent his cattle trespassir member how many chain • • left undone. Mr. Corbe his paddock, and I hai There are no cattle in eit Corbett’s property to dt but the crops were not de 1 took a pair of horses . plough the ditch. I took to get at the ditch in or another I took down som warned Corbett that his I legal fence. I have had the Court once. By Mr. Branson—l sii the rails that were across ditch, walked my horses while ploughing, and onl; at the far end to turn, fence I put up was in acc< ordnance of ’72, but his not now. At the time I Corbett there was not a fence between Corbett’s I did not throw any of from the ditch over Corbe 18 inches of an unplougl soil placed on it. By his Worship—Corbe of the part of the land 1 fenced. It was only Corb ting through the fence th sist on having a legal feric James Donald Wilson— ■ - , .; i - the sth inst., I helped my • legal, fence between our lai . We cut six inches of clayo it 2ft. deep. We had to ( at the end, and the crop croached on there to son put on clay dug out of tl side of it. Corbett and h the land, and after wc hac' ’ back, Corbett prevented . going on with the ditch. Peter Stewart, farniel know both Corbett and V the sth inst. , I was at the tion. Corbett and his me j side the ditch.. Wilson ak ■ > witness to the fact that Cc vented him from digging. l digging while I was thcr , shoved him about, and sai i stop, he would shove him C. E. Fooks, surveyorfence and the ditch. Th latter is two feet, and fc the top for about 22 ehaim 22 chains is about one fo ; deep. The actual length 82 chains, but the half of r the low land,, where the fe standards. J. Wilson, recalled—Tl the ditch I made are two are next my own house. Corbett made are the sin are only one foot eight ii deepened Corbett’s part an inches before ho stopped rn ! John Corbett, defendai two years and a half sine put up. Wilson called for telling him to have the fenc • self, and I would pay the h did very well until short! Wilson said he would n fence. He entered my . public road with his horses, part of ray crop. On the • came to the ditch and begat said to me he was deepening my expense. I pushed hir but did not hurt him, tho had a sore back. The fenct the district, and it is Wilson ing. I wanted to keep !
between myself and Wilson, and I went down with two, men and cleaved out the ditch. I have '.always maintained my fences in proper order, and I told my men to put the standards nine feet apart.'. I never saw nor heard of a notice to fence given by Wilson, and I never said I was sorry my wife had taken the notice. I put the stakes nine feet apart, because I wished to have the fence the same as Wilson’s, knowing him to be a disagree able man, and not because he had written a notice to me to fence at that distance. I never got such a notice. His Worship said there was no doubt that an assault had been committed, but plaintiff had courted the assault, and done all he could to bring it about. In regard to the fence, plaintiff had had the control of the making of it, and, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, it was evident that witness only courted the assault with the object of bringing Corbett into Court. His Worship would never encourage litigation of this sort, and would therefore dismiss the case, allowing costs of witnesses and professional foo.
Morrow v. Wilson—Case adjourned till next Frida}', when the Magistrate’s decission in the case would be given. MacLeod v. Mutch.—Chain: Lit), for the keep of an ent ire horse. Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff, Mr. Ireland for defendant Judgment was given for Lt 10s. and costs. “touchstone” in, court. Rnxton v. Fulton.—ln this case each client was his own lawyer, and the amount in dispute was LI 25., which Mr. Ruxton claimed as the cost of making a fancy dress suit for ono of the Amateur Dramatic Club’s performances. Plaintiff said the job had been brought to him by Mr. Felton, and the work had been done to defendant’s satisfaction. The fit was not objected to, nor the workmanship, and defendant bad expressed himself,'as perfectly pleased with the whole thing, going the length even of anticipating the killing effect that his appearance in the bravery would have upon the ladies. The dress had been made in time for the play, and considering defendant’s position, he had not sent for the money for a month. ho complaints had been made as to bad fittug, or otherwise, until now. Went to cbfendant, seeking the money, and had nls< sent. Was told by defendant that he hid not five shillings in the world, and tha he had nobody who would pay a poundfor him. Defendant took witness to dr. Poyntz, tiie Secretary of the Club, T ho offered to pay 15s. for the dress. Vould not accept that sum, because, havng done the work, and being able to gnaraiteo it, would take no less than the amouit of the account. It was about seven o’chck in tho morning when witness went after his money last, ns he had been told at ?oyntz’s office that defendant was shaky, md believing that defendant was about to belt, and witness himself having to go t< Christchurch by tho nine o’clock train, aid be away for some days, hehadgoneatthat early hour. Defendant cross - eianinecl witness, displaying every, article of the dress in turn, and asking questions as to the workmanship. Witness said in reply that it was two months since the things had, been made, and their good condition now was proof that they had l.cen well made. Jn evidence defendant sail nearly every article had had to be altered, and besides, the dress had not been supplied at tiie time promised, Mr. Ruxtou had to Etc l.vlrrtvwre ~ + i„ (1.0 r.'ww'.l .wo
threshing machine at'the time.. I showed the man the paddock, the sheep, and the gate. I could not go with him myself. Two days afterwards I saw the sheep were still in my paddock. I met Grant in Christchurch. I said to him “ You have not taken away your sheep yet.” He replied “ leave them for a bit, I can pay for them.” 1 said “remember, I shall charge you 2d. per head.’- The sheep remained in my paddock till the night of the 4th of June. They were in my paddock five weeks. There was good feed in the paddock. By Mr. Ireland—l told the man he could leave the sheep in my paddock, if Grant would accept my offer for them. This was about the Bth of May. Grant never said he would not give twopence a head. Twopence per head was under price for my feed.
By Mr. Purnell—When I said he could leave the sheep, I did not mean that I was to keep them gratuitously. Peter Grant, sworn, said—l am defendant in this case. I heard that plaintiff wanted to buy sheep. I sent some up to him by my man. Saw Murdock on the 22nd of May, and offered him the sheep at 4s. Cd. He offered me 4s. 3d. I would not take it. He mentioned something about twopence per head. I asked him for his bill. I was willing to pay him one penny per head. Twopence a head is not a usual price. I have' paid twopence per head for grazing on turnips. By Mr. Purnell—l might have asked plaintiff about grazing sheep at King’s sale. I sent the sheep to plaintiff’s, thinking ho uii CJ kt purchase them. I took them away, because lie did not want them. Plaintiff’s paddock was grass off which seed had been taken.
Thomas MacLeod deponed to taking the sheep to Murdock’s, thinking he would buy them. He was not at home when the sheep were taken, but eight or ton days after, Murdock asked what price was wanted for them. He was told 4s. 6d., hut would not give more than 4s. 3d. He told me I might leave them till I saw Grant about the price. I toek them away two or three weeks after. The usual charge for grazing, is one penny per week on turnips. This was all the evidence. After counsel on both sides had addressed the Bench, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, as follows Defendant to pay Id. per head for the first week ; nothing for the second week, while evidently the parties were in treaty for the purchase of the sheep ; and twopence per week for the remainder of the time : and costs, L2 Is. C. Lake v. John Mieklejohn—Claim L 5 12s. lOd. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs. C. Lake v. H. MacLsau Case adjourned till next Court day, at the request of the defendant, for the production of a witness. C. Lake v. A Maugham—Dr. Poster for plaintiff, Mr. Purnell for defendant. Claim Ll 5 for the hire of two horses, and board for defendant. Plaintiff said he let defendant two horses in March last, which he had kept for two weeks, then leaving them on defendant’s hands, and not paying for the hire as agreed, at 30s. per week. Defendant said that he had agreed to buy the horses for LSO, paying for them in instalments of 30s. per week, or more if ho could afford it. In a tiff, plaintiff had taken the horses back, thereby putting him to groat inconvenience. Plaintiff had at first offered to lend f-Uo I,*— oc. -v. ■ i v. : , - : i ' • '"A; : : I : ■ .V"
Thave alluded to a driver’s coolness and'resolution in an accident, but no chronicle ever has or ever will be written which will tell one tithe of the accidents which the courage and presence of mind of these men have averted. A railway ran over a river—indeed, it might be called an arm of the sea; as it was the inlet to an important harbor, provision was obliged to be made for the shipping, and so the piece of line which crossed the water, at a height of seventy feet, was, ia fact, a bridge, which swung round when large vessels had to pass. I.need hardly say that such a point, was carefully guarded. At each end, at a .fitting distance, a man was placed specially to indicate whether the bridge was open or shut. One day, as the express was tearing along on its up journey, the driver received the usual “ all right” signal; but to his horror, on coming in full sight of the bridge he found it was wide open, and a gulf of fatal depth yawning before him. He sounded his brake-whistle, that deep-toned Scream which signals the guard, and he and his fireman held on, as before described, to the brake and regulator. The speed of the train was, of course, checked ; but so short was the interval, so great had been the impetus, that it seemed almost impossible to prevent the whole train from going over into the chasm. Had the rails been in the least degree slippery, any of the brakes out of order, or the driver less determined, there would then have occurred the most fearful railway accident ever known in England; but by flint of quick decision and cool courage the danger was averted; the train was brought to a stand-still when the buffers of the engine absolutely and literally overhung the chasm. Three yards more, and a different result mighbhave had to be chronicled.
Some of my readers may remember an incident in railway history which dates back to our first great Exhibition. I mention it here for its singularity, and for my having known the driver Whose coolness was so marked. In asce'nding a very long ; gradient, the hindmost carriages of the train snapped their ■* coupling when at the top the engine rattled on with the remainder, while those ran down the slope, which w'as several miles in length, with.a velocity which of course’ increased every moment. To make mat ters,, worse, the next train on the same line was comparatively close behind, and, in fact, shortly came in sight. The driver of this second train, a watchful and experienced hand, saw the carriages rushing towards him, and divined that they were on the same line. If he continued steaming on, of course, in a couple of minutes he would come ihtb v direct collision with them, while,.on the,other hand, if he ran back, the callages would probably gather such way that they would leap from the bank. So, with great presence of mind, and won- —' ckriul j.jdg-’.-T.t rd speed, he yah back' .1 o-o: . qud-: "id: as liv; f..r----i o ■■ dirr. v. ;har c-'en- • V'• ’n-js brio. /.•nd Sinvk ■'!!.■ r.v: wuh ■ oT . that was d\ ‘V-o'C •: W/ Ou ’ I>c the V nr o'do/u on b;• c..- hnc; on ■V. o . ' /■. .;f. >V;; tro ;:s don-. • ■ < I;.,;- : i:.; > • ’ Hs . ■ , ,;i,ni»iud iiltTTgTrrbtiv k >_ : ■■ ■_him ’otfei ; :, e; i ■, . inn, wnore idn 0■ ”• >v o.t ■ upno.re \ ••■ fr.vuic dew ■: ar rbc • . r Mhe d.-d 0. / -nt. as ..'"iuM (./:■- •. ■ -• v .cim.ihie record of’ .. rife .a. It a coms- ■• SiO. i i a ‘-ugdty : ■; r. v--r ■ V ’ /do l t l, ; , rr , . ■ • -.oorv ,Oiv d r i- d’ o ■ d‘l.■rd v -'U d;;/ ■. : ■ ' ;■ -.v; . t VC- y vrr ■ . V V’ :■/• ... :■ : , .■;•• . r $ - 1 -:n’rri 100 , , v.it 'd; .via.. :i v.o ■ji dto rib ■; i if. . r or, that, s ■ in;v - T ' i ■ : or a-q. /rrl of inquiry v d, ■v, r -d: . ■w,.ci,"C!u upon an engine d a- < it i -■":•/ Tippers td.it the d r.a... i d v ocgme having been. ;-.,r o".i idi u": oven inferior /"i or viai , or : this is very cur. >us, . "' - - -0. • ’ O-'J-iSW'-id- .
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 242, 14 January 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 242, 14 January 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.