RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
(Before Mr J. N. Wood, R.M.)
Drunkenness. —James Porter, a drunkard, was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment.—George Auohin, a drunkard, a second offender, who had taken away two horses which did hot belong to him, was fined Is, in default,, six hours’ imprisonment.—James French, another drunkard, from Longbeach, was fined Is, in default six hours’ imprison' ment.
Attempted Suicide. —George Shrimpton was charged with attempting to commit suicide by stabbing himself in the arm on the 18th July. Mary Painter, servant at Butler’s Hotel, deposed to her seeing the defendant just after he had stabbed; himself in the arm with a penknife. He told her at the time he had done it. himself. Constable Smart deposed to having gone to Butler’s Hotelwnd he saw the prisoner’s arm and the sheets on his • bed covered with blood. The prisoner said he was mad at the time. He had been drinking.—The prisoner said he had been drinking, and had become mad. The loss of blood sobered him. The Bench discharged him with a caution. Furious Riding. —William Duncan was charged with riding furiously through East street on the 30th June. The defendant did. not appear. Henry Zander proved the commission of the offence. The Bench fined the defendant 20s with costs. ,
Horses at Large. —Benjamin Smith was charged with allowing his horse to wander in the public street. Defendant admitted the offence, but said he had left the horse tied up. Fined Is, with 2s costs. —Frederick Betts was charged with allowing three horses to wander in the public street. Fined 3s, with costs 2s.
l Insulting Language. —Maria Jones v. * Elizabeth Church—Mr Purnell for plaintiff. No appearance of either plaintiff or : defendant. Mr Purnell asked for an adjournment. The case was adjourned until next Friday week, 9th August, i emu CASES, i Orr and Co. v. Pearce. No appearance; case struck out. Armstrong v. Murphy—Claim for Li 15s.—Defendant said he could not pay more than LI a month ; he would pay by _ instalments ; he admitted the debt.— ;i Order for amount, with costs, Ba. Trustees of Quinton Bros. v. Harper— Claim for Ll2 Bs.—Mr Crisp for defendant. —Mr Gundry deposed to the debt being due.—By Mr Crisp : The entries in the ledger are all in my clerk’s handwriting. The claim is all for liquor.— Mr Crisp submitted that the claim had not been proved.—Plaintiff was nonsuited, with LI Is costs. W. Solomon v. A. Hewson—Claim for L9.—Mr Branson for plaintiff.—Mr Crisp, for defendant, objected to the service of the summons, but afterwards waived it.—This was a claim for burning bricks, and plaintiff had agreed to be paid by a share of the profits on the bricks made and sold. Defendant was to supply clay, food, and tools, plaintiff the.labor. —Mr Branson stated the case, and contended that the fact of the plaintiff being paid, out of profits did not make him a partner legally, but only formed prima facie evidence to that effect. He called W. Solomon, who deposed that he had worked for Hewson in making bricks for nine weeks. Was to be paid for the work out of the profits of 10,000 bricks. 3,500 were actually burnt. Hewson asked him not to make any more. Witness asked him what ho would pay him. He said witness could take half the bricks if he paid the man working with me. Hewson used the bricks for a chimney at his own house. Was moulding and burning for Hewson for a fert- , night and three days. Was three days working in his garden. The rest of the time was engaged in cutting drains. The usual rate of wages is 5s per day.—By Mr Crisp ; I have been fop nine years making bricks. The bricks were good enough for a chimney. Hewson wrote the agreement between us. He gave me the clay and v showed me the ground from which it was to be taken. He found me clay, firewood, and grub. Hewson asked me not to do any more than the 3,500 until he saw how they would turn out. They were not the best nor the worst of bricks. I could have sold them. I did say that there was iron in the clay. That was the cause they went so small. They wore burnt but not. properly burnt. I did say that there was' so much iron in the bricks they could not be properly burnt, in consequence > of which the bricks shrank and were too small. I was paid 10s for work in the garden. The work 1 did in cutting the drains was to make the clay fit for bricks. Nobody told me to do it. I never was paid any more than the LlO. I was paid LI, but that was before I began to work for him under the agreement. —By Mr Branson : H per week is a fair charge for - the work I did.—By the Bench: The drain improved Hewson’s land. —A Hewson, defendant, examined by Mr Crisp, deposed : That he had found the clay, fire- v; wood, and the grub mentioned in the agreement'. Did not tell plaintiff to cut the drains. There was not a * saleable brick in the whole kiln. Some burnt white, and some burnt Into ' No
ntViii- agreement was made with him except that he was to he paid out of the profits on the bricks. —By Mk Branson : The larger number of the hncks still remain on the ground. I don’t know of my own
knowledge how many were burnt, I used some of the bricks to build part of a chimney. Never attempted to sell any of the bricks. I asked him to come away from, his contract, and do some digging in my garden.—By Mr Crisp : Plaintiff had left his work for months before I used some of the bricks for my chimney, t had had to buy some other bricks to pre* Tent these from being broken down by the frost.—By the Bench : Bricks are worth about L3a thousand in Ashburton. Order for L 4, with LI 14s costs. Fanny Gosling v. George Robinson. Application to make defendant contribute to the support of his illegitimate child. Mr Spackman, plaintiff; Mr Joynt, fir defendant.—George Robinson, deposed : I do not admit that I am the father of the child. The letters produced were not i written by me. They might have been written by my authority. [Letter read in which he stated that he would provide for the child, and that he had paid more than he thought he was bound tc do]. I believe that letter was written by my authority. [A second letter was read, in which the writer said that he did not , know the writer.] That letter I wrote. [A third letter was read of the same tenor as the first. * He said in this letter that the child belonged to Mrs Gosling and her husband, and he would have nothing to do with him, certainly not take him to his own house.] There was L2l to be paid to a woman who had taken care of [A. fourth letter was read to the 'same effect.] I don’t know whether the cpmplaimant is or is not the mother of ‘ the child by me. —Fanny Gosling deposed: lam the complainant in this case. About t four years ago I was in the service of Mr Robinson, at the Rakaia Hotel. 1 had connection with Mr Robinson, and had a child by him—a boy. He is now in charge of Mr Peckham. The child was born in Sydenham. It is still living. My sister (Margaret Fayre) and a lady named Mrti Mackay were present. Mr Robinson ■ came down the night the child was born. Mr Robinson gave my sister some money on that occasion. I cannot exactly tell how much money X have received from him altogether.—By Mr Joynt: The child was horn in April, 1878. I was then a single woman. My name then was Fanny Fayre. I got married last year to Mr Gosling. He is a waiter. Have lived with my husband ever since ; but saw the child last week at Christchurch. It was a healthy child.—By Mr Spackman; Have had another child since I was mamecL—Mr Joynt contended that the fact of the complainant being married and living with her husband relieved the defendant of farther responsibility. [Vol. 1, Merson and Welsley’s Exchequer Reports.] He quoted Levy v. Spencer in support of this view. The learned counsel also quoted the case of Stacey v. Lintell. The first of these were English cases, and in 1858 all English Acts became applicable to. New Zealand in default of positive enactment to the contrary, or of their being naturally applicable.— Mr Spackman replied, contending that the case of Stacy v. Lintell was a Victorian case, and as the Victorian Act had never been adopted in this colony, the case did not apply as a precedent here. He referred to the New Zealand Destitute Persons Act, 1877, to show that cases of thia very kind had been provided for, and that the putative father might be summoned and compelled to pay for the support of the child, even though the mother was married to another person subsequently to the birth of the child. The Resident Magistrate said he would reserve the point and give his decision in Christchurch. Mr Joynt referred to the English Lavs Act of 1858, an Act passed in New Zealand to show that English Acts, except those inapplicable to New Zealand, or repugnant to the legisation of this colony, were in force as laws here. In a bastardy case it was obvious that there was nothing in England inapplicable to a similar case here. The Resident Magistrate said he would give his decision in Christchurch on Thursday next. . v , . The Court then adjourned for an hour, Armstrong v. Hartnell. Claim for T.IR 10s, for sinking a well—Mr Purnell ' for the plaintiff.—After hearing evidence the Bench thought the contract not completed, and plaintiff was nonsuited without costs.
lirstTLTiNe Language.—Maria Jones v. Elizabeth Church, and Elizabeth Church v. Maria. Jones. —Mr Purnell for Mrs Jones; Mr O’Reilly for Mrs Church.— From the evidence it appeared that the two women, wives of farmers at Ashburton, began a conversation about butter, and then wandered off into some strong language, in which both complainants and defendants impugned one another’s chastity, and made use of decidedly coarse language. After hearing evidence the Bench bound both women over in securities to keep the peace to one another. ■' - ‘ ~ ' .
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 408, 29 July 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 408, 29 July 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.