Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 254, 28 January 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASH BURTON. -To-day. (Before Mr. Nugent Wood, R. M.) DRUNKS. Several drunkards were fined in small sums, and one Smith was discharged, who had been brought up under the Vagrant Act, and confined for medical treatment. BOROUOH BY-LAWS. Matthew Morshead was accused of having tied a horse across a footpath in Wills street. He was found guilty, and was fined ss. and costs. ASSAULT. Par Paterson v. Oeorge Coulter—Mr., O’Reilly for complainant. Mr. Branson for accused. Paterson charged Coulter with assault. Par Paterson said that Coulter had challenged him to fight, had tern his flannels off, and taken his waistcoat, which had a watch in it, and hung it up on a fence, and had threatened to kill him. The torn flannels were lying on the road now, and wore good for nothing. By Mr. Branson—l owe the man money, I was short of money, and gave him a promissory note. I owed, him wages, and money borrowed. The promissory note was for LlB Bs. He got the promissory note in the morning about eight o’clock, and at three ho came and tore my flannel, and knocked me about. George Coulter—Paterson owed me money. On the day : I am accused of assaulting him I met him on the road and asked him to square up with me. He would not speak to me, and I caught him by the shoulder to stop him. He gave a pull, and pulled the shirt off himself over his head. Be then made a rush at me and knocked me down. The storeman -pulled him off me. When I got up I gave him a punch or two. While I was down he bit me in the breast with his teeth. There was no second shirt torn.
By Mr. O’Reilly—The shirt came off in the struggle. His Worship said it was a most trumpery case. Legally there had been an assault, but in the circumstances he would only fine accused ss. GATES V. BUXTON. This was the case that was adjourned from last Court day. R. G. Ruxton produced his books, from which he read an entry that a suit of the value of L 6 10?. was to be supplied to plaintiff’s son in return for some furniture, to the value of L4—L2 10s. remaining due in cash. Never recognised thefather in this affair at all, and had nothing to do with-him. Witness, who was now represented by Mr. Ireland, went over all the evidence he had previously given. In cross-examination, Mr. Branson pointed out an entry in pencil in Mr. Ruxton’s day-book, which was apparently written after the entry of the following day had been made. Mr. Ruxton denied that the pencil, covered the ink, and said the entry was made on the date it bore. ..' Maryßuckman—Rememberedbeingpresent at Mr. Ruxton’s shop. He had a conversation with Gates, juri. It Was in Jahuary. They were, talking about a suit. Gates said,ho would be very glad if Ruxton wduld 'sell the suit arid make a cheaper one. Could not tell what price was fixed for the cheaper, suit. .Mr. cross about an interior mattress that had been made, and Gates agreed to take LI oft
\ . ■ By Mr. Branson—The suit was not sold at the time referred to, because I packed it .some days after. The pencil entry was not made by me, but by either Mrs. Ruxton or my neice. I made no entries.
H. A.. Gates —Mr. Buxton got an order from me to make a suit of clothes.. When I went for them he made , excuses, and said I had such a bad figure I could not be fitted, and the suit wanted altering. Finally, ho told me the clothes were sold. Never gave him another order. Never tool, an order for furniture in my life from Buxton, and knew nothing whatever about any furniture being made for him, until my father asked mo to help cany a mattress over. The contracts for furniture were between my father and Ruxton —I had nothing to do with them I understood that I had only to pay the balance on the suit of clothes, if there was a balance. The second suit of clothes were never ordered, and Ruxton doesn’t.know, now what material to make the Second suit out of.
Counsel then addressed the bench, and His Worship said there had been some hard swearing somewhere, but, afterweighing every point, he would give a : verdict for L 4 2s. fid., being a sum less the LI alleged to have been overcharged on one of the mattresses. The verdict would also be for costs.
Olsen v. Johnston. —Claim, L 6 6s. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Little v. A. Paget.—Claim LI, for money lent. Mr. Branson for plaintiff; Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. Judgment for amount with 16s. costs Little v. J. Paget. —Claim, L 3 3s. for service of entire horse. Mr. Branson for plaintiff, and Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. Judgment for L2 10s., and costs, LI. Little v. J. Paget.—Claim, L 7 15s. for damages done to plaintiff’s property on the 15th December, 1880, and the 16th, January, 1881. Mr. Branson for plaintiffj and Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. Judgment for L 3 3s. Gd., and costs, L 3 10s. Mutch v. McLeod.—Claim LI!), for hire of a horse. Mr. Ireland for plaintiff.; Mr. O’Reilly for de r endal)t. Plaintiff nonsuited, with costs, LI 11s. Smith v. Sycamore.—Claim, LBlss. Sd.. Judgment for L 5 12s. Gd., and costs, lls. Trickett v. Smith. — l Claim L 5, for damage to a fence. Mr. Branson for plaintiff. ' George Trickett, : the plaintiff Had fenced a section with a four-feet high fence—posts and rails, and five wires. My fence has been - broken down by Mr. Smith’s mare. The mare had broken down a portion of tlie fence, and had trodden down a quantity.of vegetables and flowers. In trying get.the animal out, defendant’s men had damaged the vegetables and trodden down the growing seeds. A man bad been to the fence, and tried to repair it, but it was very indifferently done. I have had the fence properly repaired. It took a man half-a-day to do the work, and I paid Is. for the timber. Have done a deal of..work: myself. Have seen Mr. Smith about the fence : and he admitted that it was . his. horse that did the damage, and told me that he did not think it amounted to much.
By defendant—The width from post to post was fifteen feet. Before the damage was done the rail consisted of pieces joined together. The dimensions of the rail were about 4in. by Sin. Never saw the broken timber after your man haa been there. L suppose I had a peck of dahlia seed in the first instance. They were planted in clusters. Mrs.Trickett sworn—l kno w Mir. Smithy and have seen his mare and colt on my husband’s section. The mare had tried to jump over the fence, and in doing so broke down the wires and loosened the posts. Saw Mr. Smith trying to drive the mare out. It was galloping so wildly that I was frightened into the house. Have seen a man working at the fence. A number of dahlias and vegetables had been destroyed. By defendant—Don’t know' how long the mare was there, but should think it was running about the garden for about a quarter of an hour. You were trying to catch the horse when it jumped into ; oiir section, and yon came through the gap after it. Don’t know how many dahlias there were there ; should think there were about seven. Don’t know how many there are left, only three or four, at any rate. .• * >; ; .
For tlie defence, James Martin was sworn—Remembered helping Mr. Smith to catch a horse. After some time the horse jumped oyer into Trickett’s place. Defendant went down to the bottom of the garden arid chase ! the horse out, The horse was only in the garden about fen minutes. The fence was broken, and a few potatoes.’ Have seen the garden sincej and saw a place were some dahlias had been. Mrs. Trickett told defendant that he would have to pay for the damage, and he did not refuse. By Mr. Branson —The mare was not galloping round. Helped to put a rope across 1 the gap that night.; Don’t know whether Smith trod down any of the seeds. W. Levell had repaired Mr. Trickett’s fence, by Mr. Smith’s instructions. Had taken a piece of timber down to make good the fence, Mr. Trickett had said there was- : no damage done to think about. .
Judgment was given for LI 95., and Paget v. Little.-—Claim, Ll 3 10s. 6d. Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff; Mr. Branson for defendant. The evidence was very contradictory, and took- some time in hearing, the plaintiffs stating that no payments had been made, and the defendant asserting that the work sued for had always been paid for as it was done. Judgment was given for full amount with costs. , -T ■
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 254, 28 January 1881
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.
These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.
Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.
Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.
Print, save, zoom in and more.
If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.
The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.