(Before Mr Warden Carew.) The following applications for extended areas were granted :—Andrew Fullerton and another, two acres on Horseshoe Bend, south branch of Waikouaiti River, adjoining Thomas Smith and Co. ; v Thomas Smith, Henry Buckland, and Richard A. S. Cantrel], three acres of river bed claim, south branch of Waikouaiti River, adjoining Horseshoe Bend.
The Johannesburg and New Zealand Exploration Company applied for a licensed holding of five acres ia block 4, Mount Hyde.—Time for survey extended for two months.
Thomas Smith applied for a licensed holding of thirty acres in block 7, section 7, Waikouaiti.—Adjourned for survey. Peter Andrew Lyder3 and James Harrison applied for a water raca commencing at a point on Fortification Creek, about eighty chains west of block 7, Mount Hyde, and terminating at section 3, block 5, Mount Hyde.—Adjourned to the 7th of January. George Henry Oatway applied for a prospecting dredging area of about forty-eight acres, taking in the bed and about a chain of each bank of Deep Stream by Rockland's Station—Adjourned to the sth of next month.
Montagu Craddock applied for fourteen days' protection of the water race granted him in Three O'Clock Creek in the Silverpeak district.—Granted.
CUT POLICE COURT.
(Before Messrs M. Cohen, A. Christopher, and T. Culling, J. P. s.) Prohibition Order A prohibition order was issued against Thomas Hickcns Sincock, who consented to the order being made.
Vagrancy.— Lucy Smith, charged with this offence, promised to leave the town if given another chance. Chief - detective O'Brien explained that accused lived in Walker street, and the information was laid in consequent of complaints made by the ratepayers in the district. The Bench adjourned the case for a week in order to give the woman an opportunity of fulfilling her promise.
Elnabtth Smythe, similarly charged, did not appear, and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
Stealing Bottles Willi am o*Lzary and John Garrick, two boys, pleaded guilty to. stealing seven bottles valued at 7ii, the property of the Union Steam Ship Company.— Sergeant O'Neill stated that the lads were found in the act of stealing the bottles from a case on the wharf. The company had suffered a great deal lately through boys stealing bottles and selling them to Chine-e and others. O'Leary sold newspapers in the street, and was a very offensive boy. The father of the child Garrick was continually before the Court for failing to send the boy to school.— Mr Cohen said : Looking at the nature of the offence the Bench are not disposed to send boys of such tender years to gaol. They think the case will be met by convicting and discharging them. The Bench are sorry, knowing something about one of the lads, that the case shows such a thorough absence of parental control. For myself, I cannot accept the excuse of the parents that boys of their age should be in Euch a position.
A Disorderly House.— Benjamin Smith was charged with being the occupier of a house frequented by persons of no visible lawful means of support and reputed thieves. Mr A. R. Barclay defended.—Chief-detective O'Brien stated that aconsed occupied a house in a right-of-way off Walker street which was frequented by thieves and women of a low class. Tho scenes in the house were of such a disorderly character that the residents in that part of the town forwarded a numerously-signed petition to the police asking them to put a stop to the nuisance.— After evidence the case was, on Mr Barclay's application, adjourned till Wednesday.
(Before Messrs Calling and Christopher.) Councillor v. Servant.—James Thomas complained upon oath that he had just cause to tear that John Ellis would do him bodily him, and he a*-ked that the defendant should be bound over to keep the peace. Mr Hanlon appeared for the complainant, and Mr Gillaway (instructed by Mr Sim) for defendant.—Mr Hanlon said that Mr Thomas was a member of the South Dunedin Council aud chairman of the Sar>itary Committee, while the defendant was a contractor for the removal of nightsoil in the borough. The complainant was deputed by the Council to make inquiries as to the manner in which Eilis was carrying out his work and consider complaints about the way in which the defendant was performing his duties. In consequence of the complainant's action Ellis was very much annoyed, and the matter culminated in a quarrel in Mr Botting's shop at South Dunedin on the 29>;h of last month. Mr Thomas was in Mr Botting's shop diecussiog matters with the town clerk when the defendant came across the street and started to abuse the complainant. Ellis told him that he was the champion boxer of South Dunedin, and that he would drag him out and wipe the street with him, and smash hia teeth down his throat. Counsel submitted that that sort of thing should not be tolerated. Mr Thomas had only been performing his duty in the matter, and had no grudge against Ellis, who had taken the responsibility upon himself of abusing the complainant in that way.— Evidence was given by James Thomas, John Rankin (to wn clerk), and
Robert Peter Botting.-Mr Gallaway said* the case was Bimply one of Thomas sayina that lie was m bodily fear of Ellis. There was no question of provocation or assault. Counsel aßked the Bench to carefully weigh the evidence of the witnesses, and say whether Thomas had any more reason to be afraid of the defendant than the Bench themselves. The relations between the parties had not been of the best in the past, and the complainant had seen fit to tallow the defendant's carts and reprimand the drivers. He (Mr Gallaway) submitted that that sort of thing would have an irritatmg effect on any man, and if Thomas carried on m that way he must expect hot words. It was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that the complainant had any reason to fear being assaulted by the defendant. The conduct of the- complainant in the street was every bit as bad as that of the defendant's, and it was quite evident that Thomas was anxious to have ; Ellis bound over to keep the peace in order that he could ■' have it out with him.'* It was not the duty of a member of the Council to interview a contractor about his work. The duty, counsel contended, devolved upon the inspector of nuisances, and not members of a committee. Mr Gallaway pointed out that under section 11 of the Act the Bench could dismiss the case if they thought that the complainant had no just cause to fear, or that the complaint had been made out of malice "or vexation. Counsel asked if there ever was a clearer case of malice or vexation.—Evidence was given by the defendant.—Mr Christopher said the Bench were of opinion that the complainant had no just cause to fear that the defendant would carry out his threat. The case would therefore be dismissed. He (Mr Christopher) thought that the complainant had been rather over-zealous as a councillor in interfering with one. of the servants of the borough. Instead of personally interfering with the work of the defendant, he should have relegated any complaints to the inspector appointed by the Council.— Mr Gallaway said the defendant did not apply for costs.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-YESTERDAY., Evening Star, Issue 10464, 6 November 1897, Supplement