RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASHBURTON. —To-Day. (Before J. N. Wood, Esq., R.M.) Inebriacy Whilst in Charge of Horses. —George Sloan admitted being drunk on Ashburton bridge whilst in charge of horses. Ris Worship infleted a fine of L 3, and expenses 30s, in the charge of having no control over the horses, and for drunkenness he inflicted a further fine of L2 and costs ss. He reproved defendant for his behaviour, and recommended him to join the Good Templars. Alleged Dog Larceny.— Robert Smith was charged with the larceny of a greyhound slut, the property of Robert Patton, ofMethven, and of the value L 5. Sergt. Felton conducted? the prosecution, Mr Purnell representing the accused. The following evidence was taken :—Robert Patton, a farmer and hotel keeper residing at Methven, said he remembered the 15th April. The defendant was at his hotel that day about 9 or 10 a.ro. Accused had Mr Pearson with him. They had a light cart with them. The dog produced is registered, and belongs to witness. Had never lent or sold the dog to anyone, but a man named Burrows had it in training Never authorised Smith to take it. Valued the animal at L 4 or L 5. —By Mr. Purnell: He became possessed of the dog through Mr James Ireland. Never bought it from him. It was left there. He did not give it to witness. Witness registered it.— Knew a man named Johnson, living at Methven. He does not claim the dogs. It has been running at large. Mr Ireland did not leave the dog in any one’s charge. He got a letter from the defendant on Tuesday last, in which he said he was sorry at what had happened, but he had taken the dog away under the belief that it was Johnson’s property. [Witness’s letter in reply thereto was read, in which it was stated Johnson denied defendant’s right to take his dogj. Witness would have withdrawn the case after he got defendants letter.—Sergeant Felton : On Sunday last the defendant came to the police station, having the dog produced in charge. He said ho had heard prosecutor complained of its having been stolen. He wished to explain how he became possessed of the animal. He had been up at Johnson’s on Good Friday, and had asked him for the loan of it for a few days for coursing purposes. He offered to give up the dog, but at witness’s request, retained charge thereof, for a few days, pending enquiries.—George Johnson, a blacksmith, residing at Methven, deponed : I saw defendant on the 15th April. The dog produced is Mr Patten’s, and did not lend it to Smith, or was he ever asked to do so. Defendant asked me for the loan of witness’s dog, which is similar to the one produced. By Mr Purnell : Did not tell Smith that he got this dog from Jim Ireland. He told defendant to call it “Pickle.” Witness was sober, and remembered quite clearly what occurred.—James Sandy, a stableman at the Methven Hotel, said he saw the defendant and Pearson up there on the 15th inst. When Smith was going away in the evening, saw him leading a dog which witness recognised as IVfr Patten’s. Asked him what he was doing with Patten’s dog, and he sa}d it was not Patten’s, but one he had brought from Ashburton. He remarked that it had a ringworm on its side like that of Mr Patten’s dog. They went away with the dog tied behind the cart.—To Mr Purnell: There was no attempt at concealment of the dog. —A. W. Pearson said he was in company with Smith on Good Friday. Saw Johnson that day. He had a dog in his possession. Heard Smith ask Johnfor the loan of his dog, and Johnson said he would lend it for a week or two if he would take great care of it. Johnson’s dog is exactly like the one produced, and witness believed that the one in court is the same one Johnson had with him that day. Johnson said that he did not think the dog would follow Smith, but if he rubbed a piece of meat on his skin the animal would do so.—By Mr Purnell : When the conversation took place we were all together in a buggy, The dog was following. —This was the case for the prosecution. —For the defence, Mr Purnell called the defendant, who deponed to having borrowed the dog from Johnston, who informed him at the time that the dog belonged to Ireland. After hear-
ing the evidence his Worship dismissed the case.
Breach of Licensing Act. —Robert Little, hotelkeeper, Hinds, was charged with having, on the 10th inst., supplied one Robert Cole with intoxicating liquors, the said Robert Cole being then in a state of drunkenness.—Mr Purnell defended Mr Little. The evidence taken was as follows :—Robert Cole deposed that oti the 10th inst., he was in defendant’s house. Ho was in an intoxicated state. He had over Ll2 in his possession when he came to the hotel. On coining to his senses on Sunday evening, he did not recollect having any money whatever, or getting any from anyone then. All he recollected was having his supper and six drinks. His swag was lying at the Railway Station. When he recovered, he found he had no boots on him. Mr Little told him that they had been bought from him by a John Bull. Mr Little returned the boots on Monday. Had no money or clothes now. Had not had any intoxicating liquors excepting two pannikins of beer, for eleven weeks previous to going to Mr Little’s.—To Mr Purnell —Did recollect that a man named Mick the Fenian, a swagger, slept in the hotel, witness paying for his bed. Did not recollect giving him L 3. He had no money from Sunday night till Tuesday morning, yet slept at the hotel. Sold his things on Tuesday morning to Mrs Little and others, to enable him to get to town. —John Bull recollected seeing the last witness at McColJs station on the 16th inst. Saw him later on in the hotel, and he shouted four or five times for all hands. There were a good many there. He had a roll of notes in his hand, chucking them about and showing them to everybody. Witness bought a pair of boots from him for 6s. He gave him the money. He borrowed them back after witness purchased them. On Monday, when witness again saw him, he asked him to shout for him, saying that Mr Little would not serve him. When he was throwing his money about he was only jolly. He had full use of his senses, and was, in witness’s opinion, perfectly sober, although not so sober as witness’s interrogator (Sergeant Felton). When witness left in the evening of Saturday, Cole was “just merry.” Heard Little refuse Cole drinks on one or two occasions. —By Mr Purnell Bought the boots from Cole, because he said he could not wear them.—Harry Burnett Chichester, schoolmaster at the Hinds, visited the hotel on the date in question. Cole was there, and although not intoxicated, had evidently been drinking. He had several drinks during the time witness was there, from 8 o’clock to noon. Cole was shouting promiscuouly. He had boots on when witness left the hotel. , Mr Little was behind the bar during the , morning. He and Mrs Little were the only persons who served behind the bar during the time witness was present.— , This was the case for the prosecution.— For the defence, Robert Little stated that : he served Colo with two drinks on Saturday morning. He was sober then. During the afternoon, whilst drunk, Cole ■ asked for drinks, but witness refused . him. Cole paid for the board of “ Mick the Fenian,” giving in payment thereof i and of his own board 12s.—Charles i Brogden, cook at the hotel, stated that Cole was “ jolly ” on Saturday morning. Heard both Mr and Mrs Little refuse him liquor.—The same defendant was further charged with the commission of a breach of the licensing laws on the 16th inst., by permitting gambling to be carried on in the Hindhope Hotel, and with further breaches on the 19th inst., bv taking pledges for certain liquors supplied , (two charges).—After hearing evidence. r his Worship dismissed the charges of ' taking pledges, and gave judgment on the others .as follows :As regards the | charge of gambling, I shall reserve decision till this day fortnight. In the first case there can be no doubt. The evidence i of Chichester shows that he was in the hotel at 10 a.m., and that Cole was not [ drunk then ; that Mr Little served him with drink, and when he left at 12 o’clock [ he was drunk. In the last instance Mr Little did not supply him witn liquor, but Mrs Little did. Then there is the ' evidence of Mr John Bull, who states that at 2 o’clock Mrs Little supplied him , with drink. Taking it that he was drunk at 12 o’clock, and that this was only some little time afterwards, we must regard it that he was drunk. We have evidence that he was throwing his money about, and Mr Bull calls him “jolly.” There can be no doubt in the minds of the Bench that the case is proven to its satisfaction. It is one of the most disgraceful cases of what is called in slang language “ lambing down” that has ever come under my notice, and is a case which ought to be brought before the notice of the Licensing Bench. I shall fine defendant L 5 and costs. It is no excuse that because a man will make a blackguard of himself, you should aid and abet him. It is a disgrace the expense the country has been put to in this man’s case, for doctor’s expenses in attending him for the last week. I can only say that if the doctor had been produced, I should have added the sum of his expenses to the costs. Forgery and Utteking. The charge of this character against John Wood was proceeded with, and evidence having been taken, the case was remanded for eight days.
Vagrancy. —The man Cole, who figured in the charges against the proprietor of Hindhope Hotel, was charged on remand as above and dismissed.
Breach of Borough Bylaws.— Edward Barlett was fined 4s and costs, 2s. [Left sitting.]
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 331, 29 April 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 331, 29 April 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.