MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4322, 21 February 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before J. S. Beawiok.iEsq., E.M.) DRUNKENNESS. 0. Hansen, charged with being drank ■t the Bailway Station, waa fined 10s. INSANITY. Patrick Broderick was charged, on remand, with being insane and wander* log at large. Dr Hogg certified that the man waa now recovered. In answer to the Bench the man, who was evidently in a weak state, said he bad a job to go to,and he was discharged on'his promising to pay 10s the cost of bia keep in gaol. ‘ John Scott was similarly charged on remand. 7 It was proved that his condition reablted from drink and that he waa an old offender and the Magistrate warned him that on bis appearing in Oonrt again be would be sent to gaol for a long period. Accused said he never should appear there again, aa be intended going down to Dunedin and shipping Home. He was discharged on payment of JO*, cost of bia maintenance in gaol. CATTLE AT LARGE. T. MoAtJliffe, for having two cows at large waa fined 10s and coats.' A similar base dgaidtt Tbbmaa Brass!! ’was" ad{’otitned for a week for the prod notion of briberevidence.

UNEEGIBTBEED POOS. The following persons for having unregistered dorrs were fined 10a and costa: —J. Brassil, D. Averia. Ward, McClelland, J. Cook, Hammond, J. Craigie, McLef'd, T. Smith. Osborne, R, Campbell, J. Ellis, Carter, Jefcoat, Bapsey and Robertson. VEHICLE WITHOUT LIGHTS. John Ingley was charged with driving an unlightod vehicle through the town after dark. To the charge he replied with promptitude “strictly correct,” adding that be did not kcow of the existence of any such regulation. He bad had visited Timaru occasionally during the last ten years but had never known of this by-law. He was fined 5s and costs Bs. LAYING POISON. E. H. Elliott was charged under the Police Offences Act with laying poison on his premises near a public road. The section of the Act applies to “ Any person who throws, casts, drops or lays, or causes or procures to be dropped or laid, any poison (1) on or in any public place, or any place adjacent thereto, in any borough or town district, or ou or within any three chains of any highway outside of any borough ; or (2) on any laud or premises anywhere, not. in his own actual occupation; or (3) buries any poison in any land at less than two feet from the surface thereof.”

Inspector Broham said be bad evidence available to show that a number of persona had lost valuable animals through the action ef the defendant, who had never given notice of bis intention.

Defendant in bis own defence said ha bad a garden and bad been constantly and seriously annoyed by fowls and dogs getting into it, and he bad resorted to this means of ridding himself of the nuisance.

His Worship said he [understood the position of defendant. People should keep their dogs, &c. within their own boundaries and not allow them to go into other people’s groundsjand destroy property. He must at the .same time understand that this laying of poison was most dangerous to the community. Fowls might eat it and perhaps be afterwards used for food and thus human beings might be made to suffer. He trusted defendant would remember this and take warning by the fine of 10s (with witnesses’ costs 5s each) which he should inflict.

Inspector Broham remarked that a valuable dog bad been lost by defendant’s action, Hia Worship replied that the dog shonld have been kept from wandering in other people’s grounds. ASSAULT. W. J. Wood v. Walter Townsend. Mr George Wood for complainant. At the request of defendsnt the witnesses were ordered ont of Court. Mr Wood, in opening the case stated that the assault was unprovoked and violent. He called the following evidence : W. J. Wood, informant, remembered January 31. On that day saw defendant at Quinn’s corner, where he and a friend were nearly run over. He (complainant) called out to defendant to mind where be was going or he would lose bis license. Shortly afterwards, defendant followed him np and leaning over accused him of patting his fingers to bis nose and grimacing at him, at the same time,in spite of bis denial, catting him across the leg with his whip. The cross-examination by defendant elicited nothing new, and did not shake complainant’s testimony. On complainant leaving the box he quitted the room and defendant seemed somewhat agitated. In reply to the Bench he said in an anxious tone “ Mr Wood has left the Court and the witnesses are ontside.’’ The complainant was re-called and the case proceeded. Hugh Chisholm corroborated the evidence of complainant. He said Wood never pat his band to bis nose. Defendant afterwards asked him (witness) if he saw Wood put his hand to his nose.

His Worship said that question was of no importance. If such a proceeding were proved it would not justify an assault. To defendant witness said he and Wood were together and were nearly run over by tbe express. He never heard defendant ask them respectfully to getout of the way. F. J. Campbell saw tbe assault. It did not appear to be a severe one. He heard tbe parties at high words after* wards, bat could not distinguish what they said. Geo. Wood, the complainant’s solioU tor went.into the box and testified to tbe severity of the blow, as evidenced by the mark it left. Thia was tbe complainant’s case. For the defence, Walter Townsend, defendant, said he was driving slowly round Quinn’s corner* and Wood nearly ran into bis express, afterwards making a grimace, and threatening him with getting into trouble. He subsequently, when talking to complainant did draw hia whip round bis legs, but he did not really strike him or raise the whip. Defendant called no evidence.

His Woribip said it was clear an assault bad been committed though per T baps not a very severe one. He admonished defendant as to the impropriety of striking people and inflicted a fine of 10s and costs of court, with fis expenses of a witness. Complainant wanted defendant bound over to keep tbe peace, but in reply to His Worship he said he was not in fear of his life, only in fear that some similar assault might be made, and His Worship refused to take the action asked for, at the same sime warning defendant that tbe next time he was proved to have committed any assault be would be dealt with with great severity.