RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Press, Volume XII, Issue 1543, 17 October 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Christohurch —October 16. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] William Quirk was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous day. Constable O'Connor stated the prisoner had been fighting with another man opposite the City hotel, in consequence of. which he ai rested him. Prisoner admitted being drunk, and was fined ss. Superintendent v. Robinson — Claim for £34, for assisted passage. D. M. McKay, Immigration Officer, stated the money was advanced some five years ago as assisted passage money to enable defendant to emigrate to this colony. Ho had been in business since his arrival in tho colony, and a few months ago sold several head of cattle. He had not yet tendered any money in liquidation of the amount. Defendant said he consented to judgment, and hoped his Worship would allow him sufficient time to pay the amount, as he had a large family to maintain. His Worship said that it was the first duty of assisted immigrants to refund the money so advanced to them by the Government, and not to delay payment as defendant had done. He should give judgment for the full amount claimed. Belcher and Fairweather «. Osborne — Claim for £44, value of ten tons of potatoes and 114 bags. Mr Harper appeared for tho plaintiff, and stated that £33 10a had been tendered by the defendant, which his client refused to accept. Plaintiff stated that on the 30th September last he ordered his men to take a quantity of potatoes down to the Quay, for shipment on board the Elizabeth. The men saw the captain of the Elizabeth, who refused to ship them. They came back and told him this, and that they had left the potatoes with a man named Osborne, who wished to buy them. The arrangement was that if he (plaintiff) sold defendant the potatoes nothing was to be charged for storage. He went and saw defendant, and asked for delivery of the potatoes, whioh was refused, defendant stating he had bought them from one of plaintiff's men. He saw the men afterwards, and they denied the Bale of the potatoes. Had been selling at £4 per ton previously. Defendant had offered to take them at £3 10s. W. Pengelly said that he was a carter in the employ of the plaintiff. He had instructions to deliver a quantity of potatoes for shipment on board the Elizabeth. Shipment was refused, And they took the potatoes to defendant's place, and left them in his charge. Nothing was said about purchasing them. He received a receipt from defendant which he thought was for storage. He did nOt notice about the 70s being marked upon it until a few days afterwards. H. Henner said that he assisted in carting the potatoes down to the quay. When shipment was refused it was decided to take them to Aikman's for storage. On their way there they met defendant, who stopped them and said they could take them to his place, and it would then save storage. Nothing was mentioned about the purchase of them. Pengelly received a receipt from defendant. x Defendant was sworn, and stated that he met the last witness iv front of Mr Aikman's office. He offered Henner 70s per ton for the potatoes, if delivered at bis (defendant's) premises, which offer was accepted.' They went together into the office of Mr Hare, who assured Henner that the money would be forthcoming. The potatoes were afterwards claimed by a person named Auslebropk. Mr Hall was called, and stated he heard Henner acknowledge the Bale of the potatoes to defendant. His Worship said that the defendant had failed to prove the sale of the potatoes. It would have been wise when he had found out the mistake to have given them up. He had detained them entirely at his own risk. He was bound to give them up. Judgment was recorded for the full amount claimed. Kaiapoi—October 15. [Before W. P. Pauli, Esq., R.M., and C. Dudley, J.P.] Regina by H. R. Scarvell v. Robertson, manager for J. Macfarlan, Esq. The defendant was charged with having failed to use reasonable efforts to eradicate scab from a flock of sheep for whioh he had'been fined. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the defence. H. R. Scarvell, Sheep Inspector for the Northern district, on oath, stated that on July 22 an information had been laid against the plaintiff, and on August 20 he was fined for having Bheep in his possession infected with scab. Since then, on inspecting the sheep, he found that endeavours were not being made to get rid of the scab. Mr Williams objected to evidence which was merely matter of opinion being received. Witness resumed—He did not know how he could give evidence unless he stated his .opinion as to how the Bheep ought to have been treated, and whether proper steps had been taken to remove the scaborhot. There had been ample time allowed since the defendant was fined in which something might hay been done towards cleaning the sheep. Charles Cunningham stated that he resided at the X-Owburpa station, and was aware tfciat one of" the White 3Etoe___ flocks was scabby, Mid .lid _h..p lie had .liofrn' th liisp..--tor were part of the lot He -waa not aware that they had b een dipped. Had seen sheep on. the rim infected with scab which had not been dipped since August 20. A letter was here banded to the Bench, written by Mr Robertson, stating that some of the scabby flock had got among some that had not been dipped ; and the fact of about 200 sheep, of which 25 per cent, were scabby, was sufficient. Mr Scarvell thought to prove neglect. By Mr Williams—Very severe weather had been experienced since August 20, and there was a great quantity of snow on the hills. Witness would not have brought sheep from the hill to thß yards in such weather. The sheep were lambing at the time. Mr Scarvell here stated that the flock had been numbered for cutting and tailing, and could also have been-dippod. Stewart Robertson said he was manager at the White Bock station. Since August 20 Le '. hadtakien thefltfck to the yards at the outskirts of the run for cutting and tailing, but'

owing to the very bad weather he h n * _ unablo to take the sheep further • I 8n lamhing at the time, and from the „ y . w ° r o fred wore weak at tlie time. If m,,, ' • T"- y of bi • * till) Willi 1 ,.;- ) , eeti an ordinary one considerable 1 "* also have been entailed. Last vo,»- 7 W ° u!( l 23,000 sheep shorn, and 6000 \2L T <J and tailed. This year he %l Z t , Cllt would have more than 20,000 sheep 2X? lambs, and in justice to his emnlovUT 60 ° not hay.* mustered the sheep for dim • °° ula Mr Williams reminded th, B nc T,f' Clause 2of the amended Act i \t I hat h 7 that if sheep could not bo got el * proT . idf "d six months an extension of timeT' r" lin applied for, and granted on rT be grounds j and in the case before tC*? 8 contended peculiar circumstances J,.". hfl over whi.-h tho defendant hud no oonh. J""* the Bench would be justified in »?1 ' ! ant - extended time. * lowing ail Mr Scarvell thought if the sheep COlll( - . mustered for cutting and tailiue tW bfl also have been dipped. b a *T »"ght The defendant remarked that h 1 wished to do so tho weather and th J ness of the road to the dip preventedV°^ h " done. m *•" being Mr Scarvell stated that the ■ station was quite as much exno«J» .•* I""' Md **• ti,e - »ist The Bench were of opinion that negleot had been exhibited, but at t! 6 ° mß time certain circumstances prevented 0 &m& steps being taken, and they should rW Pr ° per matter for a fortnight, to be then tlle upon by the Inspector, when, if nci-l te^ orte(l proved, the full penalty would beinZ j"" Mr William- urged that the ti™»' short, to which the Bench replied that i f °° as proper stops wore being taken over? g sideration would be given the defocd* ■ C ° n " Regina v. Robertson-Tho defend"; charged with having 6000 sheep j *« scab. lhe charge was pressed by tl i pector, who stated that considerable Ifc had been shown on the part of Km ri„r ? cE A tine of £200 was inflicted, tot ST'the sheep aro clean by April 10 1868 U O. Cunningham "was also 'chorea. »vi being the owner of 7000 shoep info St!■ ? scab, and a fine of £300 was inQietS t k remitted if the sheep were cleaa by April U, G. H. Moore was charged with bein„ v, owner of 15,000 sheep infected wiEJ? and fined £500, which will be remS ? ' clean certificate be produced by Anwi ,? 1868. J pm H Or. ¥. Day was charged with »„»,,,•_. a breach of >c supplying liquor to a pereoa i v all of intoxication. a Btato John Moore said that he knew Dr Hu page, who, while in conversation with Wi' (witness) between seven and eight am on th 7th instant, said he would have a " no h bier"; he then went to Day's hotel, and shortly afterwards told witness he had sot a glass of beer and a nobbier ofbrandv ' TTn tether, partly intoxicated. '' Was O. Lezard said he was acquainted with Dr Humpage, whom he saw very drunk on thn 7th instant, about nine a.m. Dr. Humn___ told witness he , had been drinking _t DaK where he had obtained nobblers of brandy ' Frances Moore eaid she saw Dr. Humoaee come from Day's verandah between nine and ten on the 7th instant, very drunk. Ho cam. from the bar end. Jane McCelbie, barmaid, said she sencd Dr. Humpage with a glaes of boer and another of brandy on tho morning of tho 7th, between seven and eight o'clock. Mr Day shortly afterwards went into the bar. Dr. Hum-ago was apparently sober. Mr H. E. Pinching, chemist, .aid Dr. Humpage had lived with him some "nionfts and frequently got tipsy. Witness had oft.a cautioned the publicans not to supply bun with drink. The defendant had often ju-'utei witness to get Dr. Humpage from his house. Witness had not cautioned Mr Day's pre*oat barmaid. R. Woodford, junior, stated ho .siw |r, Humpage ooming from Day', at iira.'brk a.m. on the morning referred to. He w-je-j drunk. Defendant admitted that Dr. Hump_«._)i_ been Borved by his barmaid with a gins'of beer, which he declined to drink, mi i_d brandy instead.. . < The Bench dismissed the case. M. Lynskey, T. Todd, and 0. Oram, under the Cattle Trespass Ordinance, were #ned ss. each for being the owners of cattle found at large. Welch v. Humpage—Claim £4 Is. Judg ment for plaintiff. Henwood v. Gt. Alexander—Claim £819 a ld« Judgment for plaintiff. ' Harrison v. a Moari—Claim £18. Judgment for plaintiff. Humpage v. Crooke—Claim £3 3s, Judg* ment for plaintiff, £2.