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 Joseph Beswick, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —W. Dawkins, charged with being drunk at Rakaia Railway Station yesterday, was fined 40s, with the alternative of ninety-six hours’ imprisonment.—Julius Cavanagh was charged with being drunk while in charge of a horse and buggy.—Sergeant Felton said the man was ijtx a beastly state of intoxication, and in consequence of this the vehicle was capsized, and the defendant and his wife and children were thrown out. Both husband and wife were addicted to drink, and it would be well if the man was sent up without the option of a fine.— His Worship said that he would give the defendant a chance, but he had better be careful what he was about. He would be fined 20s, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. —Another man who was charged with drunkenness, pleaded that he was “not even jolly” when run in by Constable Hicks. He was taking a moonlight promenade when the constable got it into his head that he was drunk and took him into custody. He was as sober as he was then. . In all the years he had been in the colony, he had never been in such a position before.—His Worship thought that there was not much doubt about the drunkenness, but taking into account that he had been locked up all night, he would be discharged.—W. Haggarty and J. Jordan were each fined 10s, and two first offenders were discharged with a caution. Alleged Breach of the Constable’s Act. —George Joseph Martin was charged with a breach of the Constable’s Act, in inciting a prisoner to resist a constable in the execution of his duty. —The defendant pleaded not guilty. —Constable Hicks deposed that he had arrested, some days ago, a man named Burke who had been fighting with one Israel Luke, outside the Somerset Hotel. While attending to Burko, the defendant came up, and told witness that he was not to handcuff a man behind his back, as he might fall down and hurt himself. Immediately afterwards the roan Burke fell down.—B. Hughes, manager for Montgomery and Co., and G. Compton were called as witnesses, and stated that they had witnessed the arrest, but had not seen Burke throw himself down after being handcuffed. —His Worship in dismissing the case, said he thought that the defendant had shown but bad discretion in taking the part he had. It was tlie duty of every citizen to help the pnlicejto the best of his ability. If the defendant had seen any cruelty on the part ojf the police he should have reported the same to the offending constable’s superior officer. Cow Straying. —George Parkin, for allowing a cow to be at large, was fined ss. civil cases. Wa lace v. Craddock, claim L 3. Mr Crisp or plaintiff. Jas. Wallace, of the Cherbey Hotel, said he had in April last sold t le defendant a black cattle dog for L 3, Wjiioh sura he had never been paid. Judgment for (plaintiff, with costs. —S. Low i. Buckley, claim L3l, for trespass a id damage to fences. Mr Crisp for plaint ff; Mr Wilding for defendant. There was also a cross-action for trespass, Buckley suing Low for LBO. With a view to save time both cases were taken together. The case arose out of a neighbors’ quarrel. Both parties were farmers residing at Kyle, and lived opposite to each other. It appears that some time since, the plaintiff went away to Sydney, leaving his brother in charge of the farm. On his way homo he m',)t the defendant in the train, and asked him how his land was looking. Uucklty said, “ Your grass is the best in the district, and my cows have found ic out.” On his return home he found his fences broken down and his grass crop serioutly damaged. The defendant owned some 40 head of horned cattle, and they w sie repeatedly on the land, although plainti f had again and again complained of sue 1 trespass to the defendant. —The defend int admitted his trespass, but pleadei I that the plaintiff’s . horses had repeati dly trespassed oh his (defendant’s)

land. The trespass had been a mutual one, and if Low had not taken legal proceedings against him, he would never have thought of taking legal proceedings himself. The plaintiff pleaded that his fences were in a good state of repair when he left home, while the defendant said they were in a broken down state when plaintiff went away. The damage to the grass crop had been done as much by the stock belonging to others as by those animals in his own possession. A number of witnesses having been examined, pro and con, counsel declined to address the Court. His Worship, in the case Low v. Buckley, gave judgment for Ll 9 with costs, and in Buckley v. Low, gave judgment for defendant, without costs. E. Warne v. S. Lucas.—Claim, L 5 8a 6d. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, 19s. 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 MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 537, 18 January 1882

Word Count

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 537, 18 January 1882