RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1150, 18 September 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka— Monday, Sept, IV, 1883. [Before Ifßeswick. Esq., R.M., and S, Barker* and D. Inwood, Esqs., J.P.’,s}v '■ .'-'DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. , ' Scott was brought up, chwged with having been drunk’and disorderly while in charge ofa horse. ' Mr Aspinall, who appeared for the accused, admitted the offence, . and said that the accused was willing to “have a prohibition order taken out against.him, Mr Aspinall also applied to havA the prohibition order extended! to wholesale dealers in wines and spirits. 3-tis .Worship, the said he did* not’ think he had the power to do so. ’ Mr Aspinall having read the clause,, of the Act . under which, the Court ,had; ■■■ ■ . !‘. I, l„ . 4 I ■ 1,1 : iJf ( i the power, the Bench decided to .fine, the accused 20s and to grant the prohibition in.this and the Timaru districts, !'" OBSCENE LANGUAGE, v fyaura M.ead: charged! with .haying made use of obscene language withiA hearing of people-in the public streets. Mr White appeared for the accusedi' Obhfltable Morton, said thatiElizabeth ; Lid|by was charged with a similar, offence..committed.,,at the same plape, and. she,,was.also.;. brought up and the two cases beard together. , ; . r Mrs Mead denied the charge but Mrs. Lida’ey pleaded' guilty. ■ ■ ‘ ’ fpllowing evidence was taken’ :—-.i

.sJFJibiaas; Powell :nl am* a -OTfridr ari TeMufea/' 16!novi^tlie J< t#o. ; 0 . a* came to my back door and Used i bad ItegniageV ‘ (Here the witness handed in •"j&pblr (6& • : %litch'liieP■Uahghai|e ;l: #W• , Ljdsfy ' used.the worse: language. She addressed herself to me; rl[ife s! aw'ay.’ half of the street. I went to the back fence and asked what she was making, such a noise about, • and she threw a bucket of suds in my_ face. To Mr V ’White My wife objects to them, and they do not like it. I got over the fence to put Mrs Lidsey in a tub of water, but she got hold of my whiskers, iMrs Mead was l just as bad, . . 1 ■ .(*} ' - and ■ was calling my wile.bad names. ',, ■)■

To Constable Morton : Mrs Moacf lives in a house near mine, Nobody lives with her. I heard them say they would kerosene us) and burn us,out. R. J. Lloyd : I am a carjpenter in Temuka* I live within of Mrs Mead, On the evening in question I heard the noise. T ! saw Mrs Mead on the top of a box, and heard her making use of very bad language, I, sent a boy to the police, to come up directly. Mrs Lidsey-also made,use of bad language*

Mrs Mead said that what the man had sworn was false. The Bench decided to fine each of them £2, or in defaMtlA'days imprisonr; ment, and'cautionedithem that if 3 they

ever appeared agaip they f would be Severely dealt with.

, v TRESPASS,' Edward Carr; was fined 10s for haying allowed a; horse belonging- to hinl to Whrider On the railway, ,

civil CASES. Jeremiah Boston v D, McAllister— Claim £4 4s, The sum of £2 had been paid , since the summons' was issued, and judgment was given tor the balance.. B. Thomson l v J. Alexander—Claim £6 18s.

Adjourned for 14 days. •, Siegert .aqd Fauvel v J. Alexander— Claim £lO lls 6d. Judgment by consent. Wildie, Allan and Stumbles v T. White—Claim £4 ss. The cose was adjourned, as Mr Murray who was a material witness was absent, on the application of Mr Aspinall who appeared for the defendant. , W. A. Murray v A. Mundell—Claim £l6 IfiSi ; .... Adjouined till next Court day. Wood, Sinclair and Co, v J. Charles —Claim £ll 11 s Id. In this case Mr White appeared for Mr W. A. Murray, who acted as agent for the plaintiffs, and asked for an adjournment. The defendant said this -was the second tjme he had to .attend the Court. He had offered to pay the plaintiffs in produce, but they refused to take it. He had, no objection to pay the debt at any time, but he objected to being brought day after day from his business to attend the Court. Judgment by consent for LlO 15s was recorded.

James Northam v, W. Deßenzie Claim £l4 15s. Mr 'White who appeared for the plaintiff' said that a certain^ 1 sum had. been paid bat bis client did

not know what items in the account were disputed, Mr Hamersley who appeared for the defendant enumerated the items that were disputed.

x ln this case it appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant, dimes Findlay, Clark, and G. Taylor, that the defendant had two reaping machines, which he was in the habit of getting repaired by the plaintiff, who is a blacksmith ■ at; : Wirichestef. 1 f ln the beginning of last Harvest he had them Repaired, and one—the Deering—would mpt work until Mr Findlay,of Henry and Findlay, repaired it. . After that the -machine cut 90meres. The defendant

objected to pay for what had been don e to the Deering machine,, on the ground that he received no benefit from what -had .been done to it. r After hearing all the evidence, the the ,Court gave judgment for £lB 14s lid,'the deduction made being for interest charged on the account. The Resident Magistrate said there was no evidence totehow that the plaintiff had •not done his work properly. ' "■ PROTECTION ORDER. Mr Aspinall applied for a Protection andjMaintenauce Order for Maria Fitzgerald .from her husband, William Fitzgerald. 1 Mr Aspinall stated that Fitzgerald acres of land and horses and stock, and asked for £3 per week for The wife, who had five children . \,j ( jffis Wotship made ah order for £2 a week.; ■ The Court then adjourned.