RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 10, 2 May 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Tuesday, May, 1, 1877. [Before Edwabd Shaw, Esq., B.M.] THREATENING AND ABXTSITB LANGITAOS. George Taylor appeared on the information of Francis M'Guigan to answer a charge of using threatening and abusive language in a public- place* at Kjeeftan on the 20th April. ' Mr £itt, who appeared for the defendant, denied the charge,, and the following evidence was then called s-— Francis M'Guigan— l lire in Beefton, and am the informant in the present case. I recollect Friday the 20th April. Saw defendant opposite the Bank of New Zealand in Broadway on that day. It was about half-past four o'clock. I was going down the street. He said " Where's my horse ( I've got a warrant out for you." He had been going in the public houses, saying I had stolen the horse. He was singing out going along the street. That's all the language he made use of. Richard Delaney— l reside in Eeefton. i I recollect the day in question* and heard defendant say substantially what informant has stated * aha heard defendant lay something about a warrant. Did not hear defendant say anything else relative to defendant on that particular day. Joseph George Walsh— l recollect hear* ing acme words passing between the parties, but I cannot recollect the date. Taylor asked M'Guigan where a certain hprse was, and the latter said it was in his stable, and be could hare it by coming i for it. Something was also said about a : warrant, but I did not pay much attention, ; to what pasaedw. ■ Mr Pitt said he would not trouble the Bench with very lengthy defence. The language complained of was neither abusive nor threatening. It was a fact that a warrant had been obtained against defendant. He therefore submitted that nothing; had, been, shown, to support the charge. His Worship said that the question wa& what constituted abusive language. A man might use the most harmless words, yet by his behaviour make himself rery offensive..

Mr Pitt mid thai no evidence had been tendered to show that defendant's be* haviour bad been offensive, and the Court could not therefore assume it to have been so. His Worship said that in dealing with cases of this kind the Ooort could not help having regardtoalUhesnmti&dmgs. Her* was a case of the parties who had been engaged in protracted litigation with each other, and it could not fairly be assumed that defendant's demeanour towards in?* fonnant was wholly free from oflßmeew Richard Delaney, recalled by the Bench— At the time the words passed Taylor was standing near his own house and M'Guigan was on the other side © the street. The street is abont forty feet wide. George Taylor— l hare had repeated litigation with informant relative to ahorse of mine which he bad in his possession. On Friday, 20th instant, I saw M'Gnigan in Broadway; I had previously been, looking for him ; he was passing Aiken'a store, and I was on the opposite side of the street I said " Hallo, when are yon going to give up my horse." He said* u Tbe horse is in my stable, you esn go. and fetch it," and I then said I could not go as I had taken out a warrant for him I and the bailiff would go. Cross-examined; by informant— l was. standing about forty yards from you at the time. I nsver abused you. to anyone, else on the same day ; never said you had: stolen the horse* By the Bench— l merely used the words alleged for the purpose of giving M'Guigan information. Re-examined— % had paid certain feet for the warrant. This closed the case, and Mr Pitt hay* ing addressed the Court, His Worship said he felt in some doubt as to how to deal with it. There was no. doubt that the Court could deduce from, the evidence and surroundings what the behaviour of defendant on the occasion would be likely to be. A man could be very insulting in his behaviour toward* another without actually using* abusive language. In, this case the words used; appeared in themselves to be innocent enough, but there was the fact that the parties had. been in litigation, and it waa , therefore not to be presumed that defend* ant merely accosted informant for the. , purpose of giving him information in the public street. The Court therefore felt { bound to come to the conclusion that the words were simply used for the purpose of , causing annoyance to informant. The f charge was however of an exceedingly . trivial nature, but in order to prevent a, , repittion of it, and that informant should, have the liberty oi walking the streets , without further molestation, from defend-. t ant, a fine of Is would be inflicted. Defendant at the same time would under.*, stand that any repitkion of such conduct \ would be viewed differently and dealt with accordingly. He (defendant), had, taken the wrong time, place, an 4 means of conveying the information to informant* and should be more guarded in future. Defendant to remain in, Court until thefine was paid. Mr M'Guigan applied for costs as ho had to subfjoaaa and pay two wit« nesses, besides, cost of summons, Ac. His Worship said that he was not empowered to award costs* MAMCIOtfiSLX INJUBIKG PBOP2ET3* Theresa Torrens appeared upon, the information of Sergeant Neville to, answer a* charge of damaging property to the value, of 103, belonging to H. (J. Hankjn. Seigeant Werille said: that the- charge; had been la jd under the ssad clause of the. '•' Malicious Injury to Property. Act,," andj called—* Henry George If ankin— l am a share* broker at Reefton* and recollect the night of the 38th alt. At about 1| o.clM p.m. I heard the noise of a window break*, ing in the front of my premises, and. upon, going out saw defendant standing dose. : by. I did not see the injury inflicted. His Worship said that unless there waa direct evidence of the injury so as to eon-t nect it with defendant, it would be use* lest to proceed with the case. ; Sergeant Neville was under the- impress sion that Mr Hankin, bad seen the injury inflicted. If a remand were granted he. would have a witness, ia attendance, who. saw the window broken. The damage bad since been made good by defendant* husband. The case had not been brought simply with the view of having her fined,, ' as in that case her husband; would only be. made to suffer still further, but in order that she might receive a' strong caution from the- Bench, if indeed, not be sent to gaol. It was not the first offence of the kind she had committed, and hence the reason, of thepalice in bringing the action* His Worship, then gave defendant* strong caution and discharged her. ' GIVII.CASS9. Scoltock v Large.— Uhis was a jndg-. meat summons, to, recover & ferdict of £4 4s obtained defendant some, time ago. The defendant did not appear. The bailiff of the Court stated that defendant had been in almost constant work at the Hopeful mine ever since the. judgment was. obtained, and was now engaged by the Italian Gully Company. He had evaded all attempts to effect ser* vice of the judgment summons upon him* and the- summons had therefore been left at his usual of abode. His Worship said that the case waa.ia, many respects a peculiar one. The judg*. ment summons was issued qu the 18^

December for hearing on the 23rd of that month, but defendant failing to be served the matter was adjourned to the stl January. On that date it was again adjourned, owing to the inability of «h( bailiff to effect personal service, to th< 19tb January. It was again further ad< journed for fourteen dsys, and finally foi two months, and still the defendant had eluded service. In th© end the bailiff was directed by the Court to substitute petsoaal service by leaving a copy of the summons at defendant's last known place of abode and also with the mining manager of tbe company at which he was employed. Upon that service the case was now called on for a final order, and defdndant did not appear. The point now to determine was as to whether the Court bad power to dispense with personal service in the case of fraud summonses. His Worship said that such power was within the Court, and cited various authorities in support. He therefore ordered defendant to pay the sum of £5 16s within one week, or in default two months' imprisonment in Wesport gaol. The Court then adjourned.