RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 1134, 9 August 1865, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday*, August 9th. (Before John Gillies, Esq., R.M..) Drunk and Disordekly.—Campbell Graham, James Sullivan, John Turner, and James Edward?, charged with having been drunk and disorderly, were fined 20?, or 48 hours' imprisonment. Offences 'against the Polick Ordinance. —James Gilmore pleaded guilty to driving his horse and cart along the footpath in High street, and was fined lOs and costs. George Yann and Daniel Black were charged with being at such a distance from their horses and carts in Princes street as not to have the full control thereof. Yann wa3 fined 5s and cost*, and Black 10s and costs. Thomas Jones was charged with neglecting to keep clean the chimney of his house in Princes street, so that from the foulness thereof it took fire. He denied that he was guilty of any neglect, for the chimney was only recently cleaned, but it had a very'narrow flue. The Magistrate said the defendant was bound to take every precaution in such a densely populated locality, and he would fine him lOi and costs. Clement Turner was fined 203 and costs for riding along the footpath in Filluel street. John Haynes was charged on the information of the Inspector cf Nuisa?ices with cruelly heating a horse in Filluel street. The Inspector stated that the defendant beat the horse with both the handle and lash of the whip for about ten minutes, and he then took off his coat and beat it in a cruel manner over the head with the handle of the whip. There were no witnesses called, and the Magistrate said that as it wai a matter of opinion whether the horse was cruelly beaten or not, he should have preferred the testimony of another witness before inflicting a heavy penalty, but as the case stood he would fine the defendant 53 and cost?. Unkkgistebkd Dogs.—Frederick Scott and Thomas Forth were charged with keeping unregistered dogs. They did not appear, and were fined 40.} and costs, the lowest penalty provided by the Ordinance. J. S. Web!) was charged with a similar offence. He denied that he had kept a dog for the last three year:). The constable stated that when he visited the defendant's premises he found a dog in the yard, and was told by the children that it belonged to tiie defendant. He then called at the house, and saw Mrs Webb, who stated that the dog was not hers, and asked him to take it way and destroy it. The defendant stated that the dog referred to had belonged to a servant of his, and that he had endeavored, in fifty different ways, to get tid of it, but it always came back to the premises, and was a great nuisance to him. The Magistrate said the dog would not frequent the place if it was not fed there ; and if a man permitted a dog to be kept about his house, either by his family or any of his servants, he was livable to be fined. As this was the first case of tiie kind which had came bsfore him he would dismiss it, but lie huped it would act as a warning to others.