MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 25, Issue 39, 22 May 1914, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr F. O'B. Lougbnan, S.M.) At the monthly sitting of tbe Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday, two cases of breaches of tbe Defence Act were set down for bearing, both of the defendants being old offenders were severely dealt with. Two cases of stock-straying and a small amount of civil work completed tbe charge sheet. BREACH OP DEFENCE ACT. 6. A. Jones was charged that on 3rd March, at Havelock, he damaged a rifle and water bottle, and also with failing to deliver up a coat belonging to tbe Defence Department. There was no appearance of defendant. Sergeant-Major Reid, who conducted the prosecution said that tbe rifle and bottle were in good order when given to defendant, but were now useless. Tbe coat bad since been returned. There was a previous conviction against defendant and he bad been put out of tbe force as undesirable, and that was tbe reason of calling in tbe goods. Defendant was fined £2 and ordered to pay tbe damages, together with 7s' costs. FAILING TO RENDER PERSONAL SERVICE, Fred. J. Templeman was charged that on 14tb March, at Carluke, be failed to render personal'service required of him. Defendant pleaded guilty, but stated that he bad asked three times for a uniform and was not supplied with one, and also that be objected to drill under Sergt.-Major Keid. Sergt.-Major Reid (sworn) stated that Templeman .had only attended three drills since tbe scheme started, and bad not attended any daylight parades or camps at all. He has persistently refused to drill although he lives close to where they are held. He bad been fined £3 and costs on a previous occasion. When the constable served tbe second summons be understood that defendant had used terms that are very detrimental to him (witness) in his work and likely to incite others. Constable Matbieson said that when he served tbe summons to defendant be replied that he bad no, intention of attending drill, and said if tbe other territorials bad done what be bad suggested at that particular parade at Carluke there would have been no further necessity to drill they would have chased tbe Sergt.-Major out of Carluke. Defendant admitted saying he bad no intention of attending drill. Sergt.-Major Reid pointed out that on defendant’s previous conviction an attachment order was made on- bis cmI ploy ere, Messrs Brownlee and Co., but on tbe first five shillings being deducted defendant bad left bis work.

Hie Worship said that this was evidently a very bad case and be would fine defendant £5 and cos's. , Defendant said he was a married man and could not pay the fine. , His Worship: Well, I’ll have to give you the alternative. If you will not drill voluntary you will have to be sent where it is compulsory. I will issue and order that you be detained for 28 days at Ripa Island. BREACH OP PROHIBITION ORDER. John Drent was charged, on the information of the police, that be procuredi liquor during the currency of a prohibition. order, also, at Canvaetown, for being drunk while in charge of a wagon and five horses. Sergt.-Hansen said that there bad been no previous conviction against the defendant since the issue of the prohibition order. He would ask bis Worship to deal leniently with him. Defendant was fined £1 and costs on the first offence, and on the second was ordered to come up for sentence ,wben called upon. He was allowed one month in which to pay the fine. STRAYING STOCK. W. Cowling was charged with allowing two horses to wander in . Lucknow Street on 15th April last. Defendant said the horses were out accidentally. It was the first offence.—Pined 5a with costs 7s. C. C. Harris was charged that in the 14th April in Lawrence Street, be allowed a horse to wander at large. Constable Mathieson stated that on the date in question be saw defendant’s horse grazing in Lawrence Street and drew the attention of 6. Eden to the fact. He has seen the horse on the streets daily. On being warned defendant bad told him that people were in the habit of letting hie horses out of the paddock and asked him to make enquiries. On making enquiries I found that defendant rarely put his ,horses in the paddock. f Defendant took strong exception to some of Constable Matbieson’e statements and subjected him to a hot crossexamination. He intimated to bis Worship that the constable was “ a stranger to the truth,” and expressed the opinion that “ be is so' busy ploughing bis paddock and milking his cow, or chasing after it on the roads, that he has no time to look after his duties.” He suggested that Sergeant Hansen should send another man to assist him. Defendant to Constable Mathieson: Did you not say when I asked you to find out who lets my slip rails down •‘Do you want me to sit on your door step? ” Now, speak the truth, you are on your oath, and, your superior officer is looking at you I Witness evaded the question and defendant did not press it to the extent of getting an answer. Geo.. Eden (sworn),testified to the fact that Constable Mathieson bad drawn bis attention to Mr Harris’ horse grazing on the road and no one in charge. Defendant to witness: Do you remember Constable Mathieson galloping after bis cow on the street and footpath?

Defendant made a statement to tbe effect that he always put his horses in tbe paddock, and that'it has been a continual affair for rails to be puiled down. He referred to his neighbour experiencing similar trouble with bis rails—three sets of which bad been taken away. To Sergt, Hansen defendant said bis horses had not been out on many previous occasions to bis knowledge. It bad not occurred to him to fix bis slip rails or erect a gate and padlock it so. that it could not be interfered with. Have you never bean! of horses opening slip-rails ? asked the Sergeant. But the defendant refused to attribute that amount of intelligence to bis horse. Constable Matbieson said be had made sure of his facts before he laid the information, and tbe summons would have been issued long before, only be waited till be got a witness, as Mr Hams had told him he would contest the case. His Worship said it was very evidentthat defendant’s horse had been very often on>the road. It was for defendant to see that bis slip-rails were fixed, or

erect a gate and padlock that could not be opened by strangers, and; bis duty to see that it was made secure. He would be fined £1 and costs. CIVIL CASES. W. Price and Son v. T. Lockwood, claim £5 12s lOd—judgment by default, with costs 10s. Simmonds and Co. v. Alfred Peters, claim £1 6s 3d—judgment by default, with costs 15s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. W, Cowling v. E. S. Jones, claim £lO 18a sd—order for immediate payment or ten days’ imprisonment. H. Yates v, E. 8. Jones, claim £29 14s Hd—Order for immediate payment or thirty days imprisonment, the order to be suspended in each case, subject to defendant paying £1 a month off each account, tbe first payment to be made on Ist June. >