MAGISTERIAL.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 213, 10 November 1896, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

S.M. COURT, WAIKAIA Tuesday, November 3. (Before R. S. Hawkins, Esq., S.M.) ' George and Fred Thurston, two lads, sons of C. G. Thurston, were charged with wilfully damaging a house on property belonging to John Cameron at Wendonside, the amount of the damage being estimated at £20. Detective McGrath, who condncted the prosecution, asked that the amount be reduced to £5, so as to give summary jurisdiction, Mr Fletcher watched the case for Mr Cameron, and the accused were undefended. Detective McGrath said the lads resided with their parents at Wendonside, and Cameron was the owner of an unoccupied house in that district. The accused went and smashed the windows and did other damage, in company with one Hamilton, who remonstrated with them. The matter was reported to the police, but the lads when questioned said they knew nothing about it. John C.imcron aud H. Hamiltom gave evidence for the prosecution, and George Thurston (aged 14) and Fred Thurston (between 12 and 13) gave evidence in their own defence, as also did a young Collins (10 years). Robert McDowell, farmer, Wendonside, said Hamilton was not a bad sort of a lad, but witness could not believe what he said as he toldxlies. His Worship said the case depended on the evidence of one witness, aud he did not think that sufficient ; could no more evidence be got ? Detective McGrath said it was not possible to get evidence to alter the position. Case dismissed without prejudice to a fresh information being laid. Thomas and Pearse v. Hazeldean. — Claim of £.50 for breach of a rabbiting contract. Mr Henderson, for plaintiffs, asked for an adjournment until the sitting of the Court in January. After argument the adjournment was granted until January 5, costs of Court (4s) aud witnesses' expenses (£3 2s 3d) to be paid before that date. John Cameron v. G. G. I'hurston — Application for sureties of the peace. Mr Fletcher for complainant. After hearing the various witnesses, defendant was hound over for six mouths, himself in £50, and one surety of £50. ' As he could not find security that night he was detained iv custody, but next day security was forthcoming aud he was released. Wednesday, November 4. Moffit t v. Russell. — Application under the Destitute Persons Act for maintenance of a child. Mr Fletcher for plaintiff and Mr Henderson for defendant. Mr Henderson said his client had never refused to contribute to the support of the child which was only a month old ; that he had already paid £16 expenses towards its birth, and had offered and was still willing to adopt the child. Mr Fletcher asked for further expenses if only for the mouth, and said more than £16 had already been expended. The Queen was guardian of such children, and his Worship representing the Queen was now guardian. His Worship said in that case he would hand over the guardianship of tho child to the father, but would not grant any further costs or expenses. He would make no order, but defendant would have to take the child. John Cameron v. C. G. Thurston. — Claim of £10, value of a dog shot. Mr Fletcher for plaintiff, and Mr Henderson for defendant, who put in a set off for £10 damage done to his sheep by the dog rounding them up. After hearing John Cameron, A. Crawford, Thomas Stirling, and John Maher for plaintiff, and C. G. Thurston, D. Hurley, and Mrs Thurston for the defendant, His Worship said the dog' was improperly shot. The defendant was wrong in allowing his sheep to stray on plaintiff's land. He had had notice to remove them, and did not,- and Cameron had used no undue roughness in attempting to shift them. In this case the sheep were rounded up quietly, and the dog was standing quietly waiting instructions when defendant came up and shot it. He had no right to tako the law in his own hauds, and no right to shoot the dog. The man who goes on his own lands and rouuds up sheep trespassing is justified in so doing," and defendant may have done more harm to his own ewes and lambs in turning them back than plaintiff did. Judgment for plaintiff for £8 with costs (£5, 105). ;;:_£y__- • .•„'-'-'-