ASHBURTON.

Press, Volume XLVII, Issue 7518, 7 April 1890, Page 3

ASHBURTON.

Thursday, April 3. (Before Messrs C. A. Wray, R.M., D. Taomas, J.P., and W. Ot. Kees, J.P.

Drunkenness. —Thomas Warton was fined £3, in default fourteen days' imprisonment, for drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and resisting Constable Fitzgerald. The Sheep Act.—C. Stewart and J. McLaughlin were each fined 20s for allowing sheep infected with lice to be exposed for sale. James Johnston, similarly charged, was fined 10s. Civil Cases—J. Heseltine vJ. Shaffer, claim £6 7s 6d; judgment for plaintiff. Andrew Plunty v Mount Hutt Road Board. Mr Leatham for plaintiff. Mr Purnell for defendant. Plaintiff sought an order to compel the Mount Hutt Road Board to remove a quantity of stones that i had been placed on a road leading to bis property in the Methven district. Mr Purnell submitted tbat the action was in the nature of an injunction and therefore | the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. He, however, would raise no objection to evidence being called. Andrew Plunty, the plaintiff, gave evidence that a heap of stones had been placed on a road leading to his* property. The stones were parallel to the fence for some yards and also extended across to nearly the full width of the road. They were a source of annoyance and danger to him. He had repeatedly asked the Road Board to remove the stones, as they obstructed the road to his land. By Mr Purnell—The road was a blind road, a portion of which had at one time been fenced in by himself and used as a paddock. Mr Cameron had also fenced in a part of the road. Mr Cameron was the person who caused the heap of stones to be placed on the road.: So far no accident had happened, and he (plaintiff) had not suffered any accual damage. There was ample room for vehicles to pass, but the stones were a source of danger, particularly, on dark nights. L. Oxley was called, and gave evidence to having visited the locality. At this point the Bench intimated that it was no use proceeding any further with the evidence,- as there was clearly no cause of action against the Road Board. Plaintiff was nonsuited- with costs. J. Foreman v W. Sutherland, claim £2 Is Sd; balance of wages for harvesting. The defence was that the balance had been held back by mutual consent pending the completion by plaintiff of a further harvesting contract. Plaintiff had failed to do the work, and defendant had suffered great loss in .consequence. Judgment for plaintiff. Oa the application of Mr Wilding an order was made that the money lie in Court pending the hearing of an action for damages Sunderland v Foreman. Charles Braddell v John Parham, claim £2 17s lOd. Mr Wilding for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff. Saturday, April 5. ' Messrs W. G. Rees, H. Friedlander and R. Alcorn, J.P's.) Alleged False Pretences.—Charles de Joux was charged with having, by false representations, obtained from William Sparrow goods to the value of £510s 6d. Mr L. C. Hanlan appeared for accused. Seargeant Felton stated that the charge was laid under section 87 of the Larceny Act. Accused had obtained goods to the value of £3 lis 6d from Sparrow in January. ' He sought td obtain others in March last, stating that his father had authorised him to do so, and that the father would pay for them. The goods, which included a coat, trousers, and hat, were supplied, and accused left Ashburton a few days afterwards. On enquiries being made the father stated he knew nothing-about it, and had. not authorised accused to get the goods. William Sparrow, clothier, who supplied the goods to the accuseiLgave evidence in support of the charge. Witness had a conversation with accused subsequent to the delivery of the goods, when the latter stated that he was not leaving his situation, nor did he intend to" clear out." Witness told accused that if he found out that his father, had not authorised him to get .the goods he would have him arrested for obtaining them under, false pretences. The goods were supplied on the representations made by accused that his father would pay for them. Witness had not sent up the account for the goods to the father, nor had he ascertained whether the representations made by accused were false or not. Accused had " cleared out "„ without paying for the goods. Witness' had, in reply to a telegram from accused's solicitor, stated that if the full amount of the acconnt were paid he would apply to have the information withdrawn. Thomas Permain, Sparrow's assistant, gave evidence as to having waited on accused for the payment of the account owing to Sparrow. Accused asked witness to give him the account in "foil,' and he would send it on to his father, who would pay it. Mr J. Murray, watchmaker, stated that accused, just previous to leaving his father's employ, had expressed to him his intention of going away to Melbourne. G. F. de Joux, father of accused, stated that in 1888 he had -authorised his son in writing to obtain any food or clothing he needed and he (witness) would be answerable for payment.. The order had never been revoked. Had. Sparrow sent him the account owing by his son prior to taking criminal proceedings he would have seen it paid. He would not, how-1 ever, be prepared to do so now. Mr Hanlan was about to address the Court, when the Bench intimated that the .information would be dismissed. Sparrow, however, I had been perfectly justified In laying the information.