RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) J. Hallilan v. H. C. Bennett.—Claim, L 3 Os 6d, on a judgment summons. Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff.—lt appeared that defendant had admitted his ability to pay the sum within a few days, and the case was adjourned for a week to give him an opportunity of paying. G. M'Gavin v. R. G. Creagh.—Claim, L 9 6s, on a judgment summons. Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff.—After defendant had been examined as to bis means the case was dismissed. Wise, Caffin, and Co. v. M. Smith.— Claim, L 4 10s, on a judgment summons. Mr Solomon appeared for plaintiffs,—This case was also dismissed, after the defendant had been examined. G. Schluter v. J. Jackson.—Claim, LI 2s, on a judgment summons.—Case dismissed. G. Schluter v. R. Craig.—Claim, LI 9s 6d, for work done.—Judgment was given for plaintiff by default. Joseph Sealy (Ashburton) v, Joseph Swain (Auckland).—Claim, L 76, damages for alleged injury, through kerosene, to ten cases of clover seed consigned to plaintiff in the barque Alice. Mr Sim appeared for plaintiff; Mr Holmes for defendant.—The evidence for the defence in this case had been taken at Auckland, and that for the plaintiff having been now taken, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for L6B, with costs (L 8 11s 6d). H. Emerson v. Joseph Hatch.—Claim, LlO Is 4d, for wages. Mr W. Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr Haggitt for defendant.—From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff sued defendant for wages due to him as seaman on board the defendant’s vessel Awarua.—Judgment was given for defendant. Walter P. Lewis v. same.—Claim, L2l 10s 9d. Mr W. Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr Haggitt for defendant.—This case was proceeding as we went to press. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs H. Driver and S, Elborn, Justices) Drunkenness.— James Dickson (two previous convictions) was fined 20s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. (Before Messrs S. N. Brown and D. Baxter, Justices) Stealing Poultry. — William Dickson, a lad, was brought up on a charge of stealing two ducks, the property of Bridget Wallace, and one hen belonging to John Keogh, The case was partly heard last Monday, and remanded to allow of the production of Anderson, another lad said to be implicated. —Detective Henderson to-day informed the Bench that Anderson had not yet been arrested. If the Bench could spare the time the police would favor a further remand for a week; that was if the Bench thought the evidence already led would not warrant a conviction against Dickson. —Mr Brown said that the Bench would always spare time to attend to their duties in regard to the administration of justice, and would sit whenever it was necessary. They had come to the conclusion that, although they had a very strong opinion that Dickson had been mixed up with the taking of the poultry, and actually knew it was stolen, yet that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him, and the question now was whether the matter was important enough to bring the boy up again. Even if the Bench declined to remand the case further as against Dickson, he (Mr Brown) presumed the police would still look out for the other boy.—Detective Henderson replied in the affirmative. A warrant had been issued for his apprehension. —Mr Brown remarked that poultry-stealing was a growing offence, and the Bench were disposed to give the police as much latitude as possible in the discharge of their duty in suppressing it.—Detective Henderson said that it was as the Bench had stated : the offence was going on to a great extent. —Mr Brown said that apart from the question of convenience the Bench were of opinion that the boy having come up twice, and no farther evidence being available, they should dismiss him, but at the same time, although discharged, the circumstances were not in Dickson’s favor. Had there been any stronger evidence he would have been severely punished. His Worship then administered a serious caution to accused and dismissed him. PORT CHALMERS POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs A. Thomson and J. Morgan, J.P.s). Removing Timber. —Richard Turner and John Broadbent were charged with removing part of a broadleaf tree from the Town Belt without permission of the Borough Council on the 6th inst.—Constable Chisholm stated that a complaint was made to him on the 6th inst. that some persona wire catting timber on the Town Belt. He went round the road and saw Turner splitting a log on the edge of the road. Broadbent was standing alongside of him with his shirt sleeves turned up. Witness asked them if they were not aware that they were not allowed to take timber from the Belt, and Turner replied that he did not think there was any harm in taking the dead wood. Witness saw where the tree had been cut down and had rolled down the bank on to the road. Accused then admitted they got it from the Town Belt.—ln defence, Turner stated that on the day in question Broadbent came and told him tbai there was a log of wood lying on the road and to bring his axe, when he commenced to cut it up. He denied telling the constable that they got it from the Town Belt. This statement was corroborated by Broadbent.—R. G. Anderson (borough inspector), in answer to the Bench, said he could not define the boundary of the Town Belt, bat the road was a portion of it.—The Bench stated there was no doubt the log came from the Town BeP, but it was not clearly proved that the accused out it down, although they admitted removing it. After cautioning defendants, their Worships dismissed the case. By-law Case. William Watson, for allowing one horse to wander in Belle Vue terrace on the 3rd inst., was fined 2s 6d.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8007, 9 September 1889