[Before Mr 0. A. Wray, R.M., and Messrs D. Thomas and W. G. Rees, J.P.'s.]
Thomas Norton alias Murphy, was charged with riotous conduct and with resisting Constable Fitzgerald in the execution of his duty.—A fine of £3 with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment with hard labor, was imposed.
Colin Stewart and James McLoughlin were each fined 20s for having offered for sale at the public saleyards sheep infected with lice. James Johnston was fined 40s for a similar offence.
J. Haseltine v J. Shaffar claim £6 7s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs.
Andrew Prunty v Mount Hutt RoadBoard. Mr Leathern appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Pumell for. the defendants. A. Prunty deposed that he was a farmer with, land .near Methven,, and there was a large heap of stones right across the road, which were a great annoyance and danger to him. They had been there from October 1887, and only a portion had been removed since that time. If anyone drove over the heap there would most probably be an accident; Cross examined by Mr Purnell—The road was a blind road, but it ought not to be so. The road was fenced off at one time. It lay between his land and Mr Cameron's, who put the stones on the road. There was room to pass with traps and machines, but it was dangerous for traffic for stones to remain where they were, and they caused him annoyance when the fence required cutting. Lawrence Oxley stated that the heap of stones was about 3ft 6in high and run away to nothing towards | the other side of the road. The Bench considered that there was Ino case to answer, and Mr Leathern i accepted a nonsuit, costs being given against the plaintiff. J, Foreman v W. Sutherland, claim £2 Is 8d for stacking grain. Mr Oaygill' appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for defendant. The plaintiff admitted having received a cheque for £15, but claimed that five days' stacking had not' been paid for. William Sutherland gave etidence that the five days' wages were held back because Foreman had agreed to thatch some stacks for him, which had not been done, and in consequence the wheat had been very much damaged, probably to the extent of £50. Crossexamined by Mr Caygill—There was no reason why Foreman should not have done the thatching and been paid for it by him. Burgess did not pay for the thatching.—P. Madden gave evidence .that Foreman had agreed to thatch the stacks for Sutherland, but he said that some other business had prevented him doing so. Counsel addressed the Court, and the Bench gave judgment for the amount claimed, with an order for the amount to be held over till a claim for damages was put in by Mr Sutherland. C. Braddell v T, Perham, claim £2 17s lOd. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs.,
Permanent link to this item
ASHBURTON-THURSDAY., Ashburton Guardian, Volume XII, Issue 2393, 5 April 1890
ASHBURTON-THURSDAY. Ashburton Guardian, Volume XII, Issue 2393, 5 April 1890
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.