MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 9093, 2 May 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, Mat 1. (Before R. Westenra, J. Gapes, and J. Campbell, Esqs.) 'Drunkenness. —Two first offenders were fined 5s for this offence.—May Mitchell was fined £2 and costs, or in default seven days’ imprisonment. Assault. —Elizabeth Smyth was charged ©n the information of Mary Wood and Elizabeth Burt, both of whom reside in Batbadoea street, with having assaulted them and damaged furniture, &c., in Mrs Burt’s house to the value of £3 Is. Mr Weston appeared to prosecute, and after the evidence of the two complainants had been taken the Bench fined accused, who did not appear, 20s for the assault, 10s for the damage, and ordered her to make good the damage. Disputed Ownership. —James M'Lauchlan was charged, on the information of Mr E. S. M'Connell, with the larceny of a mare called Silver Queen. Mr M'Connel appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Cay gill for the defence. As the case appeared likely to be a lengthy one, and the Justices were otherwise engaged in the afternoon, they remanded it till next Wednesday. Horse Stealing. — George White, alias Clifford, was charged with stealing a horse, the property of Thomas Lament, at Somerton, near Eakaia, on April 18, 1889. Mr Weston appeared for the defence. Thomas Lament, sworn, said the black horse outside .the Court was hia property It was branded • A on the near shoulder. The horse had been grazing in Mr Angus’ paddock, between Eakaia and Chertsey, and witness had seen him there on Match 30, 1889. .Missed him a few days after, and saw him , again at the police dep6t early in May of the same . year. , Witness bad sold him at Ashburton about August, last year. Witdid not know the accused. To Mr ’Weston; Witness used the horse on some occasions between January and April, 1889, and he had the control of the horse up to the time that he had put him out to graze in Angus’ paddock. Witness had bought the horse irom Mr M'Doaald. He identified the horse by his brand and having a white fetlock, but he could not say precisely which foot was white. Thomas M'Uallum, a horse and cattle dealer, residing at Woolaton, recollected seeing accused at Pyne and Co.'s Horse Hazaar on April 20, 1889. Witness had been told that accused had a horse for sale, and witness bought the horse outside the Court for £4s from the accused, who asked JB7 10s for him. Witness considered the horse waa worth £6 or £7. Accused said he had got him from a mate, and that he had had him about six months. Ho said he had brought the horse from Ashburton. Accused gave a receipt for the money in the name of James Spencer. A short time afterwards the police took charge of the horse, and Lament subsequently took the horse back from them. Witness was quite positive as to the accused being the man who ' sold him the horse, and of the horse being ; the same one that was sold. Witness had ftkigled him out of four or five men at the police-station on the previous day. Thomas Sfcenhonso, groom at Pyne and Co.’s stables: Remembered tbe horse in ques tion, hut did not see who brought him to the stables. He had the other day picked the accused out of several men “at the station, but now that he saw accused with his hat off he did not feel so sure that he was the man who sold the horse. Being closely questioned on the subject, the witness could not say for certain that : accused was the man who sold the horse to M'Callum, but he was absolutely certain that the horse waa the one that M'Callum bought. He had groomed the horse and ridden him twice, and he was certain he waa not mistaken. Detective Neil deposed to the arrest of accused, who made no reply when the nature of the charge waa given to him. Witness was present when accused and five other men were ranged in a row in the police yard before M'Callum came up. Accused pulled his hat over his eyes before M'Callum saw him. Bobh 1 -M'Callum and Stenhouse.identified the accused. Mr Weston reserved the

accused 'was formally .. q f°r trial at the next sessions of the (supreme Court, (Before R. Beefcham, Esq., R.M.) To vl ri * AS ; E55> —-B* Patterson v. Alfred aorson, claim £3; judgment for defendMit ■with 'costs.—George M'Cormack v. W. xianranan, claim £3-4 Ha; judgment for plaintiff by default.—E. W. Pageand Co., v. JUutbie Eros., claim £43 13s 6d; adjourned to ,Aay B.—E. H. Banks v. Charles Hoad ley, claim 7a; judgment for plaintiff by default. —W. J. Simmons v. J. Purchase, claim £2 2s 6d; judgment for plaintiif by default.— J. S. B'uxton v. Mercantile Finance Company , claim £IOO. Mr Deacon for plaintiff, Mr Bussell for defendant. Mr Russell submitted that judgment must be given for defendant Company on the grounds that Buxton’s distress had been made before sunrise; that Buxton brought the cattle back to Hewlett’s paddock in order to be distrained upon, and the cattle were privileged from distress under Section 8 of Distress Apt, 1885. Mr Deacon admitted that the distress was void, but argued that Buxton made a second distress at 1 p.pv. which was legal. Ho denied that the cattle were privileged, and quoted law in support of the case. The Bench held, first, that the original distress by Buxton was illegal, as ic was made before sunrise. As to the second point, there was in the mind of the Bench the strongest circumstantial evidence that Buxton was at Hewlett’s on the Tuesday evening, and while there made a proposal to seize the cattle. Most certainly the cattle had been taken through two gates, the wires of which had been undone, not forced open by the cattle. It was his opinion that the cattle were taken away from Downes’ on. the Wednesday morning by Buxton for the purposes of distraint. He further held that the cattle were the property of the holders of the bill of sale, and that they were privileged from distress. The plaintiff took a nonsuit, with costs against him, £7 los lOd.—Robert Dempsey v. F. Benson, claim £lO. Mr Martin for plaintiff, Mr Cresswell for defendant. Plaintiff and defendant lived in Sydenham as neighbours. There was T.n old feud existing between them, and on April 6 Benson, an old man, hit Dempsey, a young and powerful man a blow with a stick, Benson at the time being slightly the worse for liquor. Dempsey, according to several witnesses, then committed an aggravated assault on Benson—hit him on the side of the head with a stone, struck him several severe blows with a stick, hit him several times when lying in the gutter, and admitted that he might have kicked him when down. Dra Patrick and C. Morten Anderson described the men’s injuries. The Bench commented strongly upon plaintiff, who, because defendant, when in his cups, hit him a trifling blow with a strek, committed an aggravated assault on. defendant, and then came to Court and tried to take more out of him in the shape of damages. The judgment would be for defendant, and plaintiff would be ordered to pay every penny of costs to which defendant had been put. —Gregor M*Gregor v. Joseph Palmer and others (Trustees in the estate of the Hon W. Robinson), claim £67. Mr Russell for plaintiff; Mr Fisher for defendants. The claim was for a settlement of the wages account of plaintiff, a station hand on the Cheviot Estate. On the calling of the case plaintiff did not appear, and Mr Russell said he would take judgment for £28.16s sd, the amount defendants stated to he due according to the station hooks. Plaintiff then appeared in Court in an intoxicated state, and the Bench ordered his arrest for contempt of Court, and ordered him to pay costs, £8 10s 83, of the suit.

ASHBUETON. Thursday, Mat 1. (Before C. A. Wray. Esq.. E.M.) The Sheep Act. —William Prebble was fined 5s on. a charge of exposing for sale a number of sbeep infested with lice. Laying Poison. —J. Moison was charged with having laid poison in a public place. Evidence was given by William Smythe and his son that two of their greyhounds had been found poisoned in Moison’s garden. A number of fowls had also died through eating poison laid by defendant. Mr Crisp, for the defence, admitted that the poison had been laid. Moison had, however, suffered great annoyance through Smythe'a dogs and fowls trespassing in his garden, and had written to Smythe telling him that poison would be laid after a certain date. The Bench imposed a fine of ss. Bridge By-laws. —John Moorhead was fined 20s for having taken a portable engine across the Ashburton traffic bridge without a permit. Breach op Borough By-laws. —James Johnston and Michael M'Avey were charged with leaving horses and drays unattended. A fine of 5s was inflicted in each case. Civil Cases. —Judgment wont by default in tbe following cases:—J. Moison v. J. Ashton, claim £1 7s 3d; E. S. Bean v. G. Lyons, claim 16s; Ashburton Publishing Company v. Harris and Moor, claim ill 7s; same v. H. Dalton, claim £2 12s; W. H. Collins v. 0. Smithel, claim £4 ss; same v. J. Smitbers, claim 11s; J. Clark v. Usher, claim £3.—A. L, Ibell v. Alex. Eugg, claim £l4 9s 2d, for wages. Mr Cutbbertson for plaintiff; Mr Crisp for defendant. A set-off of £9 was put in. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £5 3s 6d. —F. Clark v. L. Markoy, claim £4O 16s 9d. Mr Flesher for plaintiff; Mr Cutbbertson, with him Mr Crisp, for defendant. The claim was for the balance of a promissory note drawn by Markey in favour of one Burton, and discounted by Clark. On the application of Mr Cutbbertson the case was adiourned, to allow time for Burton’s evidence to be taken in Auckland.