Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON.— To-Day.

(Before J. N. Wood, Esq., R.M.)

Drunk. —A first offender was fined Is, and ordered to pay cost of cab hire in his removal to the Police Station.

Lunacy. —Peter Kepper, who attempted suicidefat the Old Men’s Home on Saturday, was committed to the Lunatic Asylum, the medical testimony proving him to be of unsound mind. Alleged Petty Larceny.— A man named William Fielding, alias William Thomas was charged with the larceny from Emma Evans of the sura of 10b. The evidence showed that accused visited a brothel on the outskirts of the town on the date of the information, and prosecutrix alleged that he removed 10s from a cupboard in her bedroom, and then left the house. This sum of money was found on him at the time of his arrest, his statement to the arresting constable being that prosecutrix gave this to him in payment of loans made by him to her. Prosecutrix admitted his having lent her money, but denied that she had given him the sum mentioned. The Bench dismissed the case, ordering the 10s found on prisoner to be handed to prosecutrix. Those Dogs Again. —C. Fooks was fined Is and costs on an information of keeping an unregistered dog.

CIVIC CASES. Maxwell v. .Wilson. Claim L 45, damages. Mr O’Reilly for the plaintiff, Mr Branson for the defence. The plaintiff claimed the sum of L 45, damages done to a mare by a kick received from a horse, the defendant’s property. After hearing the evidence, his Worship gave judgment for the sura of Ll 5 and costa.

Sycamore v. Grant. —Claim L2210s 6d, for work and labor done. Mr Branson for the plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for the defence. The plaintiffs case was that, in the latter portion of last year, he executed certain farm work on a farm the property of the defendant as partner with other persons. The defendant swore that the farm was not in his possession throughout the whole of the time covered by the items in plaintiff’s claim. He bad paid the plaintiff the sum of L 25 for work during the time he was in occupation of the farm, Scott had possession at the time the work was done, and it was he, therefore, who was responsible. Left sitting.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18810412.2.13

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 317, 12 April 1881

Word Count
386

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 317, 12 April 1881

Working