Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

CI IT POLICE COURT,

(Before Messrs K. Ramsay and W. Dawaon, Justices.)

Drunkenness.—A first offender was convicted and discharged ; Eliza Harding, who earlier in the week had vowed repentance and thereby induced the Justices to let her off, was sent to gaol for fourteen days, this being her fifty-sixth oonviction. Wandering Cattle.— Joseph Brown and Qeorge Ford were each fined 2s 6d without costs. The last-named defendant erplained that tho trespass was not his fault, inasmuch as someone removed a rail from the paddock and let the cow out.

Thrbatening Language. Wong Kum You was charged on the information of Lok Wah with using violent language in the following terms: "I'll out your head off; I'll stab you ; I'll follow you up to Naseby and stab you to death; if I don't kill you I'll not stay in Dunedin." Lok Wah asserted that he was afraid Wong Kam You wonld do him grievous bodily harm, and asked that he be bound over to keep the peace. Mr Thornton appeared for complainant ; Mr W. Macgregor for defendant. —Mr Thornton said that tho facts of the coso were these: Complainant was a storekeeper at Naseby, and recently oame to Dunedin for business purposes. Defendant was a storekeeper in Walker street. The two parties had known ono acother in the old diggings days, but had not met for years. Last Saturday morning, complainant being in a Chinese eatinghouse, defendant went into the room and used threatening language. He also attempted to wrench off a chopper that was screwed on to the table, but the owner of the place removed it. Complainant could get neither reason nor explanation from defendant. In the evening defendant wont to a smoking-room ana again misbehaved himself, using the words set forth in tho information. Comnlainant was frightened to go back to Naseby.—Mr Macgregor submitted that the case should never have been brought before the Court. It was merely a quarrel arising out of some business affair. Complainant swore that he was in fear of his life, and yet he did not lay the information until four days after the occurrence was alleged to have taken place. That fact of itself was quito sufficient to dispose of the case, as it showed that complainant was not really frightened. As to the facts, what took place was simply this: defendant heard that complainant had been spreading reports about his business, and called for an explanation. Complainant refused to explain, and defendant thereupon became very angry, bnb did not nse threats. Even if he had threatened to cut complainant's head off, that remark wonld not imply that he was going to saw off complainant's head with a knife—the remark was merely a sort of synonym for our English expression " I'll punch yonr head." But it would be absolutely denied that the words complained of were used.—Evidence having been beard, the Bench said they considered justice would bo done by dismissing the case, each party paying his own cost*.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PORT CHALMERS.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

The Btjildino Regulations, David Law was charged on the information of Robert C. Anderson with renewing a building on section 22 without submitting plans of same to the borough building surveyor in accordance with tho by-laws. Mr J. A. D. Adams appeared for the Corporation.—The defendant acknowledged having reinstated & building which was partly destroyed by fire. He explained that he was unable to submit the plans at the time, for the simple reason no surveyorthathad beenappointed by the Council, and also mentioned that since the by-laws were mado two of the councillors had erected wooden buildings in George street. He also drew His Worship's attention to a section of the by-laws which provided for seven days' notice being given prior to the appointment of a surveyor.— Mr Adams said a surveyor had been appointed, although not till after defendant had reinstated the building.—Aftsr argument His Worship considered defendant's objection fatal and dismissed the case.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890921.2.14

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8018, 21 September 1889

Word Count
664

THE COURTS-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8018, 21 September 1889

Working