RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.
ASHBURTON— To-Day. (Before Mr J. Boswick, R.M.) Supposed Lunacy. —The Working man brought up yesterday, supposed to be of unsound mind, was again brought up. Sergeant Felton-reported that the doctors had examined him,-’ and were uncertain whether the man was suffering from the effects of a; sunstroke or a slight form of lunacy. He was perfectly quiet, and the doctors thought that perhaps he might be treated at the Hospital. His Worship remanded the poor man for a month. Drunkenness. James B e.vit , was. charged under the 144th section of the Licensing Act with being drunk and creating a disturbance at the Royal Hotel last evening. The charge having been proved, the accused was fined 20s or fortyeight hours.—Another inebriate was discharged with a caution. Abusive Language. —Mrs Nelson was charged with using abusive language to her neighbors, people of the name of Page. Mr O’Reilly appeared for the defendant, and stated that this case had been called on on the 14th instant, and that there had been no appearance on that occasion of the plaintiff, although the defendant was present. Under these circumstances he would ask that the case might be dismissed. The plaintiff then gave his evidence, from which it appeared that the defendant had, while in a drunken state, come home and abused his wife, and altogether conducted herself in an objectionable manner. His Worship cautioned the defendant, and told her that if brought before him again she might be bound over to keep the peace, and she would find that a serious matter. She could go. The defendant made his Worship a curtsey, and walked out of the Court with her head erect, amidst the titterings of those present. The Obnoxious Act. —Richard Lancaster, butcher, was charged with raffling one sheep and three loaves of bread, contrary to the provisions of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Mr Branson appeared for the defendant, and said that his client would admit the offence, which was not a particularly grave one. The facts of the case were that Mr Lancaster had recently opened a new shop, and the event was celebrated > by a little jollification, but •there- was no intention ioT offancHng against the law. Sergeant Felton inti-
ated that he did not wish to press for 1 ; a ■ savy penalty. His Worship said-that - e defendant had rendered himself liable a penalty of LI 00. Mr Branson rearked that he thought the gravity of the fence would be met by the infliction of lesser penalty than the sum named. His Worship said he thought so too. He ould merely inflict the nominal penalty 1 20s and costs. CITH CASES. Digby v. Wood.—Claim L 95 15s Bd. Ir Wilding for plaintiff; Mr Branson sr defendant.—Mr Branson said that the efendant had confessed judgment, but rished to be allowed to meet the debt by istalraents. Mr Digby, the plaintiff, had ieen offered approve d bills for the amount, ,nd had refused them. He wanted bills t sight. If he persisted in this demand te would simply drive Mr Wood to the bankruptcy Court.—Mr Digby, the plainiff, expressed his willingness to accept ipproved bills. He did not require bills it sight. He had made this offer at the >utset.—Judgment for amount claimed. Friedlander y. W. Saunders. —Claim L 5 LBs lOd. Mr Purnell for plaintiff; Mr vVilding for defendant. This was a claim irising out of a business transaction retween the parties. Judgment for defendant, with costs 295, W. H. Zouch v. Henderson. —Claim LI 7s. Judgment by default with costs. Samev. Henderson ahd Co. r—Claim L2 2s 6d. Judgment by default with costs. George Johnson v. McKerrow and Co. —Claim L 6 6d. Mr Crisp for plaintiff; Mr Purnell. for defendant. This was a claim for work and labor done bjr the plaintiff, a blacksmith residing at Metli Veti, for the defendants,, a flfiri ,pf grain mer* chants, etc., at Rakaia. .The claim for repairsfto a plough. It appeared, that the plaintiff had been in the habit of doing work for the defendants at one time, but not for some tithe past. The plough was left at the plaintiff’s place by one Dunbar, whom the plaintiff imagined had brought the plough for repair from Messrs McKerrow. The defence was- that the firm had not authorised any person whatever to have the plough repaired. The plaintiff was distinctly under the impression that Dunbar was in the employ of McKerrow and Co., and entered the order on his books against them. Mr Crisp, addressing the Bench for the defence, contended that the firm had hired the plough from one Patton, and had. lent out the plough while it was in their possession executed an act of ownership over it, and would have had to hare had it repaired, if not by Johnson then by some one else.. To all intents and purposes. the plough was owned by Messrs ; McKerrow and Co. His Worship said he had riot the slightest. hesitation in giving judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. T. Dudson v. Gardener. -Claim, L 27 6s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff,. with costs. v # Bennison v. Haydon.—Claim, L 27 12s. Mr Crisp for plaintiff. This claim arose out ,of : a Certain ploughing contrad entered into between the parties by which plaintiff undertook to do certain ploughing for the defendant. The defendant objected that the work had not been executed in a workmanlike manner. The terms of the contract had not been com plied with. The plaintiff exhibited som< enormous stones, which he kept in a sad and pulled out every now and then foi the witnesses to look at. These stonei had been found on the land, and (said Mi Crisp) showed the sort of land the plaintiff had to plough. Judgment for plain tiff for L 24, without costs. The Court then rose.
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 514, 21 December 1881
RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 514, 21 December 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.