RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
AS HB CRTON. —To-day. (Before Joseph Beswick, S&q., R.M.) Habitual Drunkenness. - William Smith was charged with being an habitual drunkard. Sergeant Felton gave evidence to the effect that he had known Smith for the past 18 years. He was formerly well conducted, but had become an incorrigible drunkard. Order granted prohibiting publicans in the Ashburton and adjoining licensing districts from sup. plying Smith with liquor for twelve months. Henry Dudley was similarly charged, and a similar order was made in his case.
Assault. —Fred. Howard was charged wkh assaulting a female. Defendant did not appear, and his Worship ordered a warrant to be issued for his apprehension.
Unregistered Dogs.— A. Hewson, J. McMillan, J. Mcßae, and Wm. Plimpton were charged with having unregistered dogs in their possession, and were fined 20s each.
Larceny of a L 5 note.—William Hill was charged with the larceny of a L 5 note, the property of George Tilson. It appeared from the evidence adduced that the prosecutor lost the note in Paget’s blacksmith’s shop at the Hinds, while pulling out a shilling to give the accused, who asked him for one. On getting home he discovered his loss, and afterwards, seeing accused, asked him if he had seen anything of the note. He said, “ Yes,” and added that he had spent it. In reply to witness, accused said he was justified in spending it, as he had no intention of stealing it, but meant to return the money when able to do so. His Worship said that accused had not, he thought, intended to steal the note in the first instance, but, partly under the influence of drink, had given way to temptation. Under all the circumstances of the case he would be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labor, oivin cases. Meharry v. Wilkin and Carter. Claim, LG3 10s 6d. Mr Thomas for plaintiff; Mr Purnell for defendants. Mr Meharry said he was a contractor, and in December last he entered into a contract with Mr Carter to harvest all the crop at Dromore at the farm known as Woodlands. He (Mr Carter) was to give 10s 9d per acre, and to find two Osborne reapers and binders, and witness was to find the wire and do all Uie work. Two horses were required, and witness had six ; Mr Carter being aware of the fact. It would, under ordinary circumstances, take, with two machines, three weeks to cut the 300 acres at Dromore. Mr Carter said there would bo about 300 acres, or perhaps a little more. Went to commence work as soon as the crop was ripe. In January ’B2 got word that Mr Carter had let one half of the crop again to Mr Colwell. Thereupon told Mr Carter that half the crop would be no use to him, and that half the horses would be idle. Mr Carter said he thought it only right that Colwell should have half the crop as he had been ploughing there all the winter. Told Mr Carter that there was plenty of other harvesting on the other side of the line that Colwell might have had. He said that that had been let, and witness thereupon said that he should look to him to keep his bargain. In consequence of the breach of agreement witness was a heavy loser. The total number of acres of grain to be cut was 346, of which plaintiff cut 164. Mr Carter only supplied one machine, but just two or three days before plaintiff stopped work he (Mr Carter) brought down a machine of his own and cut about 20 acres with it.—John Carter, one of the defendants, deposed to entering into a contract with Meharry for harvesting some time in December. He wanted to take the whole of the crop, and witness said he could take half the crop or could take the crop with Colwell. The terms were 10s 9d per acre, and defendants were to find the machine, whicfh plaintiff was to keep in working condition during harvest, and return afterwards, at his own expense He was to have a new Osborne, and got it. Nothing was said about two machines being given. The contract with Meharry was that he was to cut, stook, and stack. A few days after he commenced work witness saw him, and he had only one man employed then, but promised to get more assistance. One man was not sufficient. Meharry said nothing then about the whole contract having been let to him on that occasion. He got on very badly with his work throughout, and witness was always complaining. Ultimately found it necessary to put on another machine. At this time the crop.was “ rotten ripe ” and shaking, and a second machine was absolutely necessary to save it. Never intended to let more than half the crop to Meharry, and to harvest that half he was to have the one machine.—Cross-examined by Mr Thomas, Mr Carter said that ho had promised Colwell half the Woodlands crop to harvest long before the harvest commenced. Had made a memorandum of times of entering into the contract with Meharry and Colwell, but had not got the memorandum with him, and could not say in its absence as to the precise dates.— Robert Hamilton, manager at Woodlands, stated that he remembered Meharry coming to the latter place to harvest, and ho never at any time said anything about taking the whole of the crop. He had not got sufficient men to do the whole crop. He never said anything to lead witness to suppose that he was to have two machines. The cutting was done satisfactorily, but the stocking was not. Ultimately Meharry was helped to harvest his crop.—Colwell having been examined, His Worship said he would reserve his decision for a few days. For a fortnight, perhaps, but possibly only until Friday next. Two or three other unimportant cases were also disposed of. The Court then rose.
Permanent link to this item
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 670, 23 June 1882
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 670, 23 June 1882
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.