Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume XIV, Issue 1135, 21 May 1879, Page 7

Resident Magistrate's Court.

Blenheim, Monday, May 19. [Before Sami. Johnson and T. Redwood, Esqs., Justices of the Peace.] DRUNKENNESS. Jane Smith was brought up on remand from Friday (having been at Picton gaol during the interval), charged with being drunk in Charles Street the previous day. The Inspector said the woman had now recovered from the effects of drink, but she was otherwise in ill health, and was desirous to be sent to the Hospital. The medical officer would be able to take her in to-day. The Bench discharged the woman, telling her they hoped she would not come before the Court again, for if she did she would be dealt with under the Vagrant Act. Peter Byrne, charged with being drunk, pleaded guilty, and said he hoped as this was his first offence, and as he had no money, that the Magistrates would let him off. Constable Addis stated that he arrested the accused on Saturday near the Maxwell Bridge, and took him to the lock-up, where he remained until next morning, when he was bailed out. The Bench discharged him with a caution. James Cope, also charged with drunkenness, pleaded guilty, and was discharged with a caution. STRAY HORSES. Henry Jellyman was charged with allowing three horses to wander at large in a public thoroughfare on the 13th inst. He pleaded guilty, and stated that he had closed the gate of the paddock where the horses were, but the railway people had chopped his fence down, and let the animals out. The Bench lined him ss, and costs ss. Alfred Dillon pleaded guilty to allowing one horse to wander at large in a public place within the Borough, and stated that the place where the horse was tethered was an unfrequented street. The Bench said this case was evidently different from the last, as the horse must have been deliberately placed where it was, and fined defendant 10s, with 7s costs. BREACHES OE DOG NUISANCE ACT. Bichard Wolfingdon was charged “ with having a dog in his possession without a collar having a registered ticket placed thereon.” Defendant admitted the charge, adding the dog was not his, but belonged to another person, for whom he was taking care of it. The information was laid under the Dog Nuisance Abatement Act of the Province of Marlboiough, 1863, which imposes a penalty of not less than £l, nor more than £5, for this offence.

The Bench said they had no alternative, and fined defendant £l, and costs 7s.

John Mitchell pleaded guilty to a like offence, and was fined in the like amount.

Aaron Penney pleaded guilty to a like charge, stating that the dog was registered, but had lost his collar, and he thought it a hard case to be fined under the circumstances.

The Bench pointed out that there was a clause in the Act providing for such a contingency, viz., that “where any registered dog has lost his ticket during the year the owner of such dog shall, upon proving the same upon oath to the satisfaction of one or more Justices of the Peace, be entitled to a renewed ticket, on payment of a fee of 2s fid.” Their Worships said the law gave them no option in the matter, and fined defendant in the minimum penalty of £1 and 7s costs.

Arthur Lummas pleaded guilty to a like offence, but said the dog did not belong to him, but kept hanging about the place. It was now dead. Other dogs came about the place in the same way. There was a dog at his place which a gentleman had left with him, what was he to do with it ? The Bench said it was not their place to give advice, but it would be well for the dog to he kept outside the Borough until the owner was communicated with. Defendant was lined £1 and 7s costs.

Alexander Peddle pleaded guilty to a like offence, and was fined £1 and 7s costs. Edmund Hill Stratford was charged with a like offence. The accused said the dog was registered, but he could not get a collar from Mr Old. A

Mr Old said the dog was registered, and it was not his place to supply collars, but defendant had not even called for his ticket. Defendant was fined £l-and 7s costs, W. B. Earll pleaded not guilty to a similar charge, saying he had no dog. Sergeant Cullen proved that the dog was kept on defendant’s premises, and was sometimes chained up there. Defendant said the dog belonged to a man in His employ, and was registered, blit it got adrift without its collar. ■ < ’ •

The Bench said it was sufficient if the dog was on Mr Earll’s premises to render him liable, and fined him £1 and costs.

George S. Budge pleaded guilty to a like charge, saying it was quite true the dog was at largo. Defendant was fined £l, and costs 7s. Alfred ■was charged, with a similar offence. \ • Defendant did hot appeari J - - - ~

Sergeant Cullen deposed to finding the dog, a large mastiH', running about the streets without a collar. He knew it to be Mr Fell’s dog. Defendant was lined £1 and costs 7s. ROGERS V. ADAMS. This case was called and again adjourned for a week on the application of plaintiff. EDWARDS AND CO. V. FRANKLIN. This was a claim for £2 os for freight and passage money. Mr Sihclair appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant, recently waiter at the Club Hotel, did not appear. Mr Godfrey, cleric at Messrs Edwards and Co., proved the debt, and the Court gave judgment for the amount claimed and £1 16s costs.