ASHBORTON— THURSDAY. (Beforo Mr 0. A. Wray, R.M.) j _"ALSB ItEIIKS-KTATIONB. ' Qeorgo Hogore, convicted last week of I obtaining poods and money by faleo pro- I tenoea, and remanded m order that tho probation officer might Institute enquiries and r.port as to the oharaoter of the accuiod, was brought up. The report of the Probation officer was favorable, and Sogers was admitted to six month)' probation nnder the First Offenders Aot and was ordered to pay the sum of £13 14* l'Od, being expenses Incurred In the; oasp, and the amonnt necessary to r.lmbuao the people whom aconsed defraaded by means of false pretences. alleged malicious injury. John Hyde and Henry Martin were charged under the M.llolous Injirlos to Proporty Aot with having damaged a fence belonging to Walter Candy, at Dromore, to tbe extent of £2 — Mr Cutbbertson appeared for the aconiud. — Mary Candy, wife of Walter C»ndy, aald 'hat ehe and her husband lived on twenty-five acres of land at Dromore. The laod waa fenced alt round with two wires and » tikes. Twelve and a half acres were In wheat. On tbe morning of the 16 ih she got up and f< nod 7 horses and 8 calves among her wheat, tho animals having got In because a nu rubor of stakes In the fenoe were down and the wire out m three places. Witness spoke to Hyde about tbe matter bnt he denied all knowledge of the matter, and refused to mend the fence— -By Mr Cnthberteon : Witness's husband put on live .training ports and strained 'hi wires, bnt witness drove the stakes. Ehe drove them m with a heavy axe— Kate O'Malley, residing at Dromore, said that on Thursday night she heard the accused driving past her father's house and heard one of them say, " We will do something for a lark," and shortly after wards she board Iho wire m Candy's fenoe rattle, the did not see the aconsed bnt recognized them by their voioes. Sbo walked acrora to the fence and found that the wires were quite loose, the acouced then being about six chains away. — 0 instable Caiey said that he had inspectet. the fence and made a plnn. A number of stakes were pulled up and the wire broken m two places. Witness arrca'ed Hyde on the 17th. He said that it wasn't his fault ; Ma tia was driving and ran into the fence, and tho wi*e pot entangled about the wheel. Entherine O'Malley, wife of P. O'Malley, Drcmore, .aid that on Thursday evening her daughter oalled her to tho dcor. She went there and beard wires coming down. rhe did not know anything else. — The defence was that the occurrence *»aa purely an aoolde_t The aoou.ed Martin, gave evldenoe to the effect that he and Hyde were driving on the Thursday night. They had a somewhat •klttlun horse and the train coming by, It bolted and ran Into tho fence. One of the wires broke and got entangled round tbe wheel and step of the trap. When the wire broke tbe stakes fell down, being on'y a few Inches m the the ground. The fenoe was a very poor one. It was sixteen chains long, wih a straining post at each end. The stakes were a few inches In the ground and there were two wires only ono of whioh was sirained. Wltneimade an offer to Airs Oandy to repair the fenoe, but the offeff w»s declined. Tbe words beard by Miss O'Malley that aocused Intended having a lark, Martin explained to have reference to a dance — The oasei were dismissed, the Magistrate saying that tbe evideooe did not warrant the charge* CIVIL CASK-. J. Strlbllng v R. Morgan, claim 10s 61 Mr Cutbbertson for plaintiff, Mr Orlap for defefendant; The olalm was for pertain £Ut Irons alleged to have been sold by plaintiff a. wife to defendant's wife. The defenoe was that Mrs Btribllng made a present of the Irons to Mn Morgan, and that It wai not till the latter had started opposition In the hoarding houie line tint any olalm was made. A good deal of evidence was taken, and the Magistrate characterising the oate sb a wrotohed paltry one, gave judgment In favor of ! defendant* F. Duncan v J. Qolgley, claim £5 6s. Me Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Orl-p for defendant. The plaintiff claimed commission on tbe sale of a portable engine. A man named Elliot wrote to plaintiff saying that be wanted a portable engine. Plaintiff showed the letter to defendant, obtained a dlscrlpttou of an engine he wished to sell, and sent it to Elliot. The upshot was the sale of ibe engine from defendant to Elliot, and plaintiff now claimed con.mla.ion. Tho defenoe was that if Duncan obtai' ed £120 for the engine he would be given £5. but there waa no mention made of commission; 1 he earn of £120 was not obtained for tho engine, whioh Eliot purchased tr £105. The defence further submitted as a matter of fa<t lb* tale of the engine waa m .0 w^y dae to Duncan's agency, but to that of a man named Ro i s, who had been negotiating on Elliot's betnlf for some time prior to Duncan eppear'ng on the scene, — Tbe Magistrate considered that it was shown that Duncan had been em ployed, and that at any rate he had brought the matter nnder the notloe of Elliot. Beyond, th : s, however, Duncan had done little towards carrying out hti oontraot.acd tbp Bench considered that he was not entitled to the fnll amount of bis claim. Judgment for £2 10s and oosls. The Court t**en rose.
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.