RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASHBURTON— To-Day. (Before Mr J. Beswick, R.M.) Drunkenness. —Thomas O’Brien, fined , 10s the day before yesterday for drunkeni ness, was again charged with that offence > and fined 20s.—Benjamin Boswell, was charged with drunkenness on 16th and fined 40s. t Wife Desertion. —Ben. Boswell was [ charged with wife desertion.—Mr O’Reilly appeared for complainant, Mr Branson for the defence. —Mr Branson submitted that , the parties were living apart, and the woman had had a protection order granted in June i last by Mr Nugent Wood.—Mr O’Reilly objected. He had the right to open the case, Mr Branson could offer any objection after. Mr O’Reilly then stated that the complainant had seven children, and the defendant had failed to contribute towards his family’s support. He seldom went home, and when he did it was only i to beat and abuse his wife.—Mr Branson objected, as the separation order had been granted, that the present action could be entertained. —Mr O’Reilly said he thought it would be useless to go on. He must consider the objection raised a fatal one. He had only just been instructed, and the information he saw had been wrongly laid and it would be necessary to lay another.—His Worship thereupon dis-. missed the case. [Mr 0. P. Cox, J.P., here took his seat on the Bench.] Riotous Behaviour. Four working men named Anderson, Osborn, Holmes, and Barker, were charged with riotous behaviour at the Methven Hotel yesterday afternoon. Nothing was known against three out of the four defendants ; the fourth (Barker) had been previously before the Court, about a month ago. One of the three said that he and his two mates had travelled 200 miles together. He admitted having been drunk ; he had been drunk before, but he had never been in a police court before.—The Bench said the defendants had evidently imagined that by visiting a little outlying place they would be safe from punishment, but in that they were mistaken. Anderson, Osborn, and Holmes, would be sentenced to a week’s imprisonment with hard labor. Barker would be fined 20s. Two Shillings’ worth of Flowers. — W. G. A. M. W. Miller was charged with stealing flowers, valued at 2s, from Mr
Mainwaring’s garden near the County Council office.—J. Hooper, in the employ of Mr Lancaster, butcher, deposed that he knew the defendant. He had been employed as Lancaster’s manager. At midnight on the 16th inst. was with defendant, and saw him take the flowers. He took them with him to the shop, and said he would keep them for Tommy Cotton’s wedding the next morning. [Laughter.]—F. W. Mainwaring, clerk to the County Council, deposed to missingcertain flowers from his front ga, -Ten, simi'ar to those produced. The flowers were the property of the County Council.—The charge was dismissed, the Bench considering no intent had been shown. Embezzlement. W. G. A. M. W. Miller was then charged with embezzling the sum of L2, the money of Richard Lancaster. The accused pleaded “ notguilty. ” —The prosecutor deposed that he had engaged the accused to look after his Wills street business on the Ist of this month. He had to account twice a week to witness for cash received. He was getting 30s a week and found. Mr G. Truckle was a regular customer at the City Butchery. The L2 paid by Truckle to defendant on the 7th
of the month, the accused had not ac counted for to witness in any way. The cash book produced was the book in which accused had to enter all sums received. On the 17th Miller left the shop unknown to witness, and was away until the following Saturday, when witness sent for him. He had not accounted for the L2 in question.—G. Truckle deposed to paying accused L2 on the 7th, and L2 on the 14th. Both amounts were paid to Miller who visited him at the boarding-house to collect the money.—Constable Neill, deposed that he saw accused at the Tinwald Hotel on the 14th, and he said “ It’s all right; I have made away with the money.” He did not say whose money.—By accused : You said “ It’s all right, old man, I have made away the money, and I had rather you had the case than any other constable. ” —The accused, on being asked if he wished to make any statement, said that he merely wished to deny the truth of what Constable Neill had said. He had seen Constable Neill at Tinwald, and what he really said to him was, “ Well, if I do get into trouble about this I can replace the money.” Neill had remarked that he knew him, and did not, on that account, wish to have anything to do with the case. The Bench said that owing to the confused way in which the prosecutor kept his accounts they must dismiss the case.
[Mr Cox here left the Bench.] The Alleged False Declaration Case. —A. W. Worthington was charged on remand with the above offence. Mr Wilding appeared for the defendant. —C. P. Cox, registrar of the Wakanui electoral district, said he had received an application from Worthington to have his name placed on the roll. Knew Fowler's Buildings, Tancred street, Ashburton. That place was not in the Wakanui district. By Mr Wilding : The Wakanui district would include the Rakaia township, and also a part of Ashburton outside the Belt. Roughly the district extended over 60 miles.—Mr Wilding then addressed the Bench, remarking that he presumed the case for the prosecution had now finally closed. These proceedings, he submitted, were not in accordance with the Act, and were therefore nugatory. This was a criminal information, and an important case, as other cases of a similar nature were, he believed, pending. —The Bench said the real question at issue was whether Worthington had acted wilfully or carelessly. —Mr C. P. Cox then got into the box, and said that being informed that a number of persons were applying to get their names on the roll who were not entitled to do so, and hearing further that Worthington was one of them, he called upon him and asked him to substantiate his claim. —Mr Wilding objected to the summons as informal. The defendant had not had the fifteen days to which the Act entitled him in which to prove his claim.—His Worship said he must take time to consider the case further, and would therefore adjourn it until the 30th. Horse Wandering.— T. Hyde, for allowing a horse to wander at large, was fined ss. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs with costs :—Orr and Co. v. J. Daly, L 8 Os 9d ; G. J. Martin v. M. Ibell, L 4 9s ; same v. Tilley ; L2 12s 8d ; same v. C. Smithell, LI9 7s lid ; Longbeach Road Board v. J. Wilcocks, L 3 14s Id ; T. Taylor v. M. Ibell, L 4 4s 9d ; Montgomery and Co. v. C. McLaughlin, L 5 18s Id. G. J. Martin v. Williams—Claim L 9 5s sd. Judgment for Lsss 5d and costs. Longbeach Road Board v. E. Jones — Claim 18s 9d. Judgment for amount without costs.
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 499, 23 November 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 499, 23 November 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.