THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20060, 16 October 1930, Page 7

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. WEDNESDAY. (Before Messrs D. Jackson and J. Toss, Justices of the Peace.) RICCARTON TRAFFIC CASES. For cycling on the footpath, John Henry Chaney, James Inwood, and Irene Eadie were each fined 10s and costs. John Thomson was fined 10s and costs for cycling at night without a light. L. Keane was fined 5s and costs for driving a car at night without a tall-light. A charge of failing to stop when called on by the traffic inspector was dismissed. John Alexander Carr was fined 10s and costs for riding on unregistered motorcycle. Colin Booth, who . made a voluntary Appearance, was fined £3 and costs for rldir.g a motor-cycle in a manner dangerous to the public. Daniel Healy McKenzie was fined 5b and costs fot riding a motor-cycle at night with out a tail-light, 10s and costs for riding without a license, and £1 and costs for not having a silencer on his machine. Norman Vasey was fined 5s and costs for riding a motor-cycle at night without a taillight. RANGIORA. (Before Mr E, D. Moslem S.M.) George Murfitt was charged by H. Quinney, forem.an for the Ashley River Trust, with allowing stock to wander at large on the Ashley river-bed and damaging willows planted for protective works. Defendant, who did not appear, was convicted and fined > £2 and costs t amounting to £2 14s. Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in the following cases: M. Cosgriff v. A. J. Davidson, £4 2s lOd and costs; i 6. Sturgess v. J. H. Trumann, £3 9s and costs; North Canterbury Motor Company ,v» J. L. Jamieson, £8 lis 9d and costs. Judgment Summons —Walter Taituha was ordered to pay Owen Alfprd £1 15s forthwith, in default two days* imprisonment; E. Pateman was ordered to pay Horrell's Garage £ls 15s 7d forthwith, in default sixteen days' itn priSonment. John Joseph Dunick (Mr Stacey) pleaded not guilty to a charge of breaking three panes of £la&8, value £5 17s Gd, in a shop in High street occupied by a Chinese, as a laundry. At the previous sitting of the Court three other young men appeared on a similar charge and were convicted and fined. jEvidence was given by Edward Alfred O'jNei! and Albert James o*Neil that the defendant was one of the party concerned 'n the breaking of the windows. Mr Stacey, in admitting that defendant was present when the windows were broken, contended that there was no direct, evidence that his client was concerned in actually breaking the windows. Defendant was convicted and fined ilO, with £1 19s 2d portion of the damage, and witnesses* and Court costs £3 7s 6d; in default one month's imprisonment. . FAIRLIE. (Beforo Mr C. R. Orr "Walker, S.M.) In the case, Fraser and Co. v. Thomas INoian, judgment was given, by default, for £5 17s 6d. James Sutherland v. Lan Fleming—-Judg-ment for plaintiff wa3 given by default, for 14s Gd. James Sutherland v. R. C. Bellam—-Judg-ment tot plaintiff, by default, was given for £4 15s. Harris Bros., Ltd. (Christchurch) v. R. C. Bellam—Defendant did not appear. Mr A. D. Mcßae appeared for the plaintiffs. Defendant was ordered to pay £l4 16s 6d and solicitor's fee £1 Is. The County ranger (3. A. Rowan) prooecdod against David Hastings Doyle, on a ci*afge that he had allowed stock to wander on a public road in Fairlie. Defendant said that he was not the owner of the cattle iu question. The Magistrate said that it was the owner of the cattle who was liable. Defendant then stated that the cattle be longed to his wife. The Magistrate stated that proceedings would have to be taken

against defendant's. wife. Defendant said he would withdraw that defence and would accept responsibility as owner. He pleaded not guilty ou the ground that tho cattle were not on the road, but were on railway property. The county ranger gave evidence of finding some of the cattle on the side of the road alongside the railway line, and one was on tho railway line. He had' driven the cattle to Doj-le's place and asked defendant whose cuttie they were. Defendant had said they were his cattle, and told witness that he had no right to take them as they were grazing on railway property. Defendant gaver evidence that a woman passed the near defendant's place and the cattle were then close to the railway line.. In reply to the Magistrate, defendant said that the road lay• between his property and" the railway line, .and that, the cattli would havo to cross the road to reach the railway. . < Defendant was fined 10s with costs 10s. . In the case, Police v. Gardner, further evidenco was taken, and the case was adjourned sine die. ALLEGED LIBEL. Douglas Smith (Simon'B Pass), farm manager, claimed from Thomas Wilson; of Matyhill Station, rabblter, the sum of £SO as damages for alleged libel. The statements complained of were said to be contained in a letter alleged to have been written by the defendant to the plaintiffs employer (Mrs Mathieson). Mr A. D. Mcßao appeared -for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear. . Mr Mcßae outlined the case, stating that the matter was a serious one from the plaintiff's point of view, and that in the absence o: any legal defence he would be entitled to substantial damages. The defendant had hten given an. opportunity,. in July last,' of withdrawing the and tendering an apology to the plaintiff, but defendant had not taken advantage of this opportunity. The present claim had been made primarily with a view to clearing the plaintiff's character. - ■' i.-. V* The plaintiff stated that early this year he had received a letter from M&thieson enclosing the letter produced, addressed to her and signed "Thomas "Wilson." The allegations implied iri the letter were answered to Mrs Mathieson's satisfaction, but in view of the serious nature of the allegations he bad instructed his solicitor to obtain an apology and a withdrawal from Wilson. In answer to the Magistrate, witness said that_ he did not know the defendant's handwriting, and as no notice of intention to defend had been filed he had not considered ft necessary to call Mrs Mathieson. The Magistrate intimated that before giving judgment he would recmire some evidence showing that the handwriting in the m er P ro^uc ®d was that of defendant. The case was adjourned until December 9th. I