R.M. COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 25 June 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

Saturday, June 23,

Before J. Allen Esq., R.M. DHLNXFNNESS. Alfred Gregory, alias William Smai c, was charged with being drunk in Market Place, at 9.40 p.m. Sergt Scanlan said it was accused’s second offence, and stated that during the last day or two he had been very troublesome to several residents. He had been cautioned to leave the town. Accused said that if he was let off, he would clear out at once. His Worship reprimanded the prisoner, and fined him 5s and 2s costs, telling him to get out of the town as soon as possible. The amount of tho fine was not forthcoming. FALSE PRETENCES. Charles Jackson, alias Ellis, was charged with having, on the 21st and 22d June, 1888, unlawfully and knowingly, by certain false pretences, obtained money from James Harvey and others, with intent to defraud. He was arrested by Constable Sheary, about 3 o’clock the previous day, and at that time had the sum of L 7 2s 9d on his person. Sergt Scanlan'said that accused had been going ahoqt tbs t-Qvm collecting

money for a German friend, whom he said was disabled and unable to work. There was another man with him, but he did not appear to have anything wrong with, him. There would be sever? 1 other charges against the accused, and he would therefore ask for a remand till Monday morning. He was only arrested yesterday afternoon. Mr M‘Nab : I appear for the prisoner. I suppose, Sergt Scanlan, you intend to call the German as a witness.

Sergt. Scanlan : I am of opinion that the man was collecting the money with intent to defraud, nothing more or less. Mr M‘Nab : But that’s not false pretences. Sergt. Scanlan : But he did it falsely. His Worship : Have you any witnesses to call this morning, Sergt. Scanlan ? Sergt. Scanlan replied that he had the evidence of the arresting constable. However, as there were sevaral other charges E ending against the prisoner, he would ke to have until Monday to work them up. Mr M‘Nab said he did not oppose the adjournment. * His Worship : Very well then, the accused will be remanded until Monday at 10 o’clock. r JUDGMENT. His Worship delivered judgment in the case of Dickson v Walton. He said it was one of those cases in which a magistrate had to give a decision not so much on the merits of the case as on the hard sweariug indulged in by both parties. In the present case there were four witnesses for the plaintiff, all of whom were more or less interested in the affair. One witness stated that he had known the horse he was driving at the time the accident occurred for about twelve months, and had never known it to shy. The horse was walking quietly along the road, and witness put it on to a trot just before ha came to the defendant’s house. The dog rushed out as they were passing, and frightened the horse, the result being that the trap was capsized and the occupants thrown out. He did not lash the horse, and there was no whip in the trap. But what did the other side say ? They said that they saw the horse coming along as hard as it could, and Wady was whipping it. One witness went as far aa to say he was lashing it. These witnesses also said that the dog never went through the fence, and that it was not the cause of the accident. What was he (the Magistrate) to think after such contradictory evidence had been given ? The dog probably did frighten the horse, whether it got through the fence or not. The dog was a notoriously had one, and was a great nuisance, and that fact told against the defendant’s case. The most important question, therefore, was that of costs, The letter supposed to have oeen written by Mr Rogers was produced in Court, but plaintiff’s solicitor did his best to keep it out. He raised the question of privilege and confidence, but Mr Allen was of opinion that these questions should never have been raised. He saw no reason why the letter should not hare been produced, but it would have been better to have given it to defendant, and asked him whether he had received it. However, it was put in and he (the Megietrate) had accepted it. He found that the letter gave defendant until the 23rd June to pay the amount, and be would therefore endeavor to place the parties in the tarns position as they would have been if the present action had not been taken. Ho would give judgment for plaintiff for £8 15s, and order each party to pay their own costs. Mr M‘Nab: Will your Worship grant Court costs ? » His Worship : No, not a single cost, as I think the defendant should have had until to-day to pay the amount claimed. The Court then rose.