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.


ASHBURTON— To-Day. Before his Worship the Mayor and Mr Robert Alcorn, J.P A Row about a Dog. —Thos. Eastwirk, of Coldstream, was charged with the larceny of a sheep dog, valued at LlO, the property of Alfred Nordstron of Tinwald. Mr O’Reilly appeared for the owner of the defunct dog, Mr Branson was present on behalf of the defendant. Mr O’Reilly said he would withdraw the case, as it was laid under a wrong information. Mr Purnell objected. This was not a civil case, and a police case could only be withdrawn by permission of the justices. He would not object to the withdrawal of the case, but he would ask for costs. He had a number of witnesses from the Hinds, who had come up solely for this case. At the last moment complainant wished to withdraw the case, because he he had found out that he really had no evidence to support it.-—Mr O’Reilly said that that was not so. A mistake had been made in laying the information. The complainant charged the defendant with larceny, whereas ho had not committed such an offence. They had now laid an information for malicious injury to property. Under that section of the Act the Court could award L2O damages to his client. The dog was a valuable sheep dog. At any rate he would ask the Bench to postpone the question of costs until the case had been heard. A dispute now arose between the counsel as to under which information—that for larceny or the one for malicious injury—the case should be heard. Mr Purnell was perfectly willing to allow the case to be heard under the original information. Mr Mr O’Reilly was just as willing to proceed under the last information laid. The case was not heard at all. A stormy discussion then arose between the counsel as to costs. There were several witnesses whose expenses Mr O’Reilly objected to pay. The Bench ultimately agreed to allow the expenses of five witnesses at 10s per day and Is a mile for travelling expenses.— Mr O’Reilly objected to the Is mileage, when for 2s the witnesses could be conveyed some home and some a long way towards their homes.—Mr Purnell objected thrt the Court had always allowed the shilling per mile.—Ultimately the Bench allowed the shilling, less twelve miles to the Hinds, for which each witness received his railway fare only. Total, including professional fee, L 7. No Appearance. —John Elliott, arrested on Monday for drunkenness, and liberated on his own recognizance of LlO, failed to appear when called, and the Bench directed that a notice be served on defendant calling upon him to appear and show cause why his recognizance should not be estreated. The Court then rose.

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

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 520, 28 December 1881

Word Count

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 520, 28 December 1881