CANTERBURY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2436, 21 November 1900, Page 51

CANTERBURY.

For some time past the police have been watching a yard in Gloucester stx-eet which was used by a " two up ' school, and on the 13th inst. the- made a raid on the premises, where between and 50 men were gambling, and captured 12 of them after an exciting scene. All the men had money. One was possessed of £61, while a considerable sum which was in the ring as stakes was seized. v The case against Henry Vincent Styche, charged with attempting to procure murder, will not come on at the Supreme Court until the other cases on the calendar have been disposed of. It is stated that Mrs Styche will be unable to give .evidence. At the Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, "Broncho George" was charged with having ill-treated a bullock and cow at the "Wild West" show by lassoing and riding them. JThe magistrate said the exhibition was cruel and unnecessary. No good object was served, and the animals had been driven frantic by pain and fear. He inflicted a fine of 40s, and refused an application to have the fine raised to £5 to enable an appeal to the Supreme Court. Great interest was taken in the election of borough councillors at Waimate on the 15th inst. Five councillors resigned their seats because the mayor printed a new by-law against the wish of a majority of the councillors. On the mayor (Dr Barclay) refusing t& put the vote of censure on himself for so doing five councillors resigned. They all stood for re-election, as well as five others, and all the old councillors were again returned. The voting was as follows : — Coltman, 176 ; Cameron. 171 ; Jones, 170 ; Inkste'r, 156; Mann, 145; Scott, 137; Freeman, 150; Evans, 113; Dash, 109; Butcher, 90. c Dr Pairman, who had been subpoenaed to give evidence at the Supreme Court yesterday, but was not present, attended last Wednesday morning, to show cause why he should not forfeit the penalty of J3IOO mentioned in the subpoena. When questioned by his Honor, Dr Pairman said he did nof attend because he thought he was not bound to do so if the defence, on whose behalf he had been called, did not tender him his expenses. His Honor asked why he had thought so, and Dr Pairman replied that he had always been under that impression. <tLe referred his Honor to a passage in Taylor's "Medical Jurisprudence.'' Mr Stringer, Crown prosecutor, said that the passage did seem to afford Dr Pairman some justification. His Honor &aid that

he would accept Dr Pairman's excuse. He explained to him that "the law relating to civil and criminal cases was quite different. In criminal cases it had been held from very early times that if a person was called to give evidence it Avas a duty he owed to the State to come forward to assist in the investigation. It was no excuse that a witness's expenses had not been tendered. The only excu&e that was accepted in case of absence was that a witness had been without means to convey himself to the place of trial.