KAIAPOI.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7363, 16 July 1889, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

Monday, July 15. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., RE) A Woodend Case — Obscknb Language.—John Satterley, a young man, was charged with being drunk and using obscene language on Sunday, July 7th, towards persons in a public place. Caroline Dearsley, licensee white Crane Hotel, Woodend, said on 7th accused came in drunk at 9 p.m. She told him to go out, when he used the obscene language complained of, which was very foul. J. Stevens, a boarder at the hotel, gave corroborative evidence that accused, on being refused a drink, used very bad language. The accused only came to the hotel once. He was tipsy when he came there. Owen Morgan and Annie Morgan gave evidence of the nature of the filthy language used. The latter stated accused struck her over the eye. For the defence accused said he went to the hotel to get a drink, he had previously had drinks in the hotel. That afternoon he had called at the Royal Hotel, but he was not a drinking man. He lived alone, in a place where he had no fire, and went to the hotel to pass an hour. Sometimes he went to theßedldonHotelatßangiora. Afurther charge for being drunk on July Bth was admitted; for also using obscene language on this date, accused supposed he used it. Owen Morgan said on Monday, Bth, the accused came to the hotel drunk, stamping on the floor, and knocked a screen down. He then refused to go out, and created such a scene the police were sent for. The language used was very disgraceful. Mrs Dearsley and her daughter gave similar evidence. Constable Cartmill stated he went out to Woodend and found accused had left the hotel, a mate having taken him away. He was known as being inclined to be disorderly. To the CourtHad not been able to ascertain where the man got drunk. In defence, accused said the whole affair had arisen out of spite through jealousy at his going to another houee, but previously he had seen worse affairs than this in the hotel, and had been able to tret drink at any time. The Resident Magistrate said whether there was jealousy or not it did not affect the charges of using obscene language. For being drunk he was fined 10s on each case, and sentenced to one week's imprisonment tor usintr obscene language. . Civn- Cases.— Judgment was given for plaintiff in J. Sims v Hopera Uru, 27 Is 2d. P. C Threlkeld v W. A. Garnett, £96 17s 6d. Mr Fisher for plaintiff. This was a claim for damage done by a fire on March 12th, alleged to have been caused by the defendant, who was a contractor for

clearing rushes on the farm of Mr J. S. White, Ohoka, which fire, spreading in a strong nor'-west wind, spread from Mr White's property on to that of plaintiff, burning fences, feed, and sheep, for which £7117s 10d was claimed, and £25 by way of general damage. The defendant was not present or represented by counsel. The first witness called for plaintiff was Mr White, who was not present. The case was thereupon allowed to stand over to the end of the list. The witness was again called but did not appear. Mr Fisher asked the summons to be amended by adding tbe name of Mr White, who probably should be joined for reasons given in the plaint. The Resident Magistrate said he thought he could not amend the plaint in that way without giving Mr White notice. Mr Fisher explained he was anxious to save cost. The Resident Magistrate agreed to an adjournment for fourteen days, which would allow Mr Fisher to issue the summons to join, and serve Mr White his summons. Orpheus Knight v James Clark, £21 15s for labor and carting. Mr Spackman for plaintiff, Mr N. Nalder for defendant. The matter stood adjourned to allow defendant to file a set off. J. Mclntyre v W. L. and M. L. Fowler, £17 2s 4d, wages. Mr M. Nalder for plaintiff, Mr Spackman for defendants. This was a case re-heard from last week. Plaintiff said he engaged with Mr Fowler to work on his farm at " 12s 6d a week if he suited, and 10s a week if he did not suit, with £2 extra at harvest time. He had the right to leave on giving a week's notice. Was positive the hiring was not yearly, but was only a weekly one. Mr Fowler, in the box, stated since his bankruptcy the farm was in his wife's name. It was held on a purchasing clause. He engaged the plaintiff on a yearly hiring. Mr Spackman raised a nonsuit point on the question, that Mrs Fowler had a separate estate as a married woman, and that Mr Fowler could not be sued. The Resident Magistrate, in giving judgment, observed it would be establishing a dangerous precedent if he were to hold that a wife could take a farm, and the husband could engage the labor, and repudiate the agreement for the labor because the farm stood in his wife's name. It was clear the wife in this case had the benefit of defendant's labor, seeing she would get the money from the crops, and as they were both included in the suit, but the amount had been paid into Court by the husband pending the decision of this rehearing. He gave judgment against defendants for the amount of £17 23 4d with costs. The decision was receivedby the audience with expressions of applause, which were immediately suppressed.