RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1508, 20 May 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temlcka—Wednesday, May 19, 1886. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.J SLAUGHTERING WITHOUT A LICENSE. William Oldfield was charged with having slaughtered 12 sheep without a license on tbo 7th May last. Mr Aspinull appeared for defendant and Mr Raymond for the Geraldine County Council. Mr Aspinall said the defendant was served with a summons yesterday evening and had not time to make a defence. Constable Guerin proved that the summons wis served at a few minutes after 12 o'clock yesterday. His Worship said he would let it stand .= ovar until next Coutt day, but the defendant decided to go on with the case. F. W. Stabbs, Clerk to the Geraldine County Council : 1 know defendant. He spoke to me about a license on the Bth of May. I saw dead sheep in his shop, and , told him I was surprised to see so many shsep in his shop as he had only a 10s license. He took out the £5 license on the following Monday. He admitted: that he was slaughtering more than ho. was entitled to do under his license. Mr Aspinall held the slaughtering had not been proved. There was no evidence of sheep having been slaughtered on the 7th. W. Oldfield : I told Mr Stabbs I sold more sheep than I was entitled to. I paid the money for the license bat did not get it. I did advertise 60 sheep for sale, but that is nothing. I have seen • man advertising 200 when he had not 20. To the Court: I did not admit to Mr Stubbs having killed more than ten sheep. I did not admit I killed them on the day , mentioned in the information. His Worship said be was quite satisfied the defendant had killed the sheep. Wat this the first offence ? Mr Aspinall: Tes. Mr Raymond asked His Worship to make the fine exemplary as these cases were of frequent occurrence. Mr Aspinall asked His Worship not to pay any attention to Mr Raymond. His Worship said anything that was said wonld have no effect on his decision. The defendant rendered himself liable to a fine of £lO, but as this was the first offence he would inflict a fine of 20s and CObts. TRESPASS ON THE RAILWAY. Henry Goodey was charged with allowing two cows to wander on the railway. His Worship said Goodey's wife had writted a letter to the elect that her husband was away from home, and that she bad no means of communicating with him. On this ground he wonld adjeurn the case for a month. CRUELTY TO A HORSE. Thomas Parke was charged with having neglected te supply hia horse with food and water. W. Alder ton, Stationmaster, Temnka, stated that between 3 and 4 o'clock on the afternoon of the 13th a horse was put in the stockyard at the station, and left there all the evening. It was there next morning, and witness communicated with the police. It was a wet night. It was 9 o'clock next morning when witness communicated with the police. The defendant admitted the charge, and was fined 10s and costs.

CIVIL CASKS. J. M. Naughton v. McKee—•Claim £9 148 7d. —Mr Aspiosll appeared for plaintiff, and judgment by default waa given for the amount claimed and costs. The same v. H. MoMaster—Claim £2 16s Id.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. J. Beri v. (Jope (a Maori) —Claim 14». —Judgment by default for amount claimed sod costs. Thoe, Radford t. 0. Bateman—Claim £l2. Mr Hameraley appeared for the plaintiff. Thomas Radford, the plaintiff, stated the amount waa due to him for cooking for a threshing mill. To defendant: You said you would give me the same as other mills. I asked for a job at carrying water, but you said you would not give it to me, but would give me the cooking. W. Renau.l :1 was cook for a threshing machine and my wages were £2 per week. C. Bateman : When the man came to ' me he asked me for a job at carrying water, but I said he wou'd not be man enough for it, but I would give bim tbe .cooking. 1 told him if the old cook turned up he would have to get the job, The old cook came back, and offered to •vork for £1 per week. I told Radford that if he would not do it for tbe same [ could not keep him on. I never had any agreement with him for the first 16 or 17 days. There was no complaint of his cooking*. The piaintill, recalled, said he never heard of the old cook comins: back. The arrangement was that the pay should be the same ne in other places. The defendant said it was tbe first lime in hia life he had been summoned. His WorViip after reviewing the evidence gave judgment for tbe amount claimed and coats. A. T. Horobrook v. A. M. ClarkClaim £l.

Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspiaall for defendant. A. T. Hornbrook: The amount is claimed in lieu of a week's notice, f got notice on Monday night to leave on Tuesday morning. 1 was never told why I was discharged. I was engaged at £1 per week. To Mr Aspiaall: I was discharged on the Monday after the Sunday that I was shooting. Mr Clark paid me up to the date. There vere sheep on the road, but they were strangen. I told McColl I thought they were Wigley's. A. M. Clark : T he reason I discharged this man was because 1 saw him with_„ Lavfry shooting in the paddocic and disI turbing the sheep. 1 gave instructions to McColl to discharge him. To Mr Tosawill: He waß going through the paddock shooting and disturbing the / sheep. I never gave him permission to j shoot, neither did I warn hiin not to 1 shoot. I John McColl: I discharged the plaintiff for shooting and disturbing the site?p. * Ha said it was no more than he exp^ed. Mr Aspinall said if the mm had apologised he would never have bren discharged or prosecuted. Mr Tosswill urged that he was entitled to a week's wages in lieu of notice. His Worship said he geve Hornbrook the benefit of the doubt in the last case, but in this instance bethought the plaintiff

was justified in discharging him, so the case woald be dismissed. Wiroing Bros, t, Siegert and Fan vol— Claim £9O 0a 61. Mr Aspinall foi plaintiffs, and Mr Tcmswil! for defendants. His Worship said this was a case in which he ought not to sit. He was somewhat mixed up in it. Mr Aspinali said his clients had sufficient confidence in His Worship. Mr Tosswill also said his clients had no objection to His Worship sitting. His Worship said he could not bear the case. It could be heard by two Justices of the Peßce by consent, or it could be taken to the District Court. "Mr Aspinali said he did not like to take it to the District Court as it would entail B great deal of expense. His Worship said it could bo heard by Mr Baddeley in Geraldine. The fact was he could not hear it himself. He ought to'be called as a witness. The plaintiffs agreed to have the case heard in Geraldine, but the defendants; represented * !»«it their witnesses were their employees, ana thai if they had to go to Geraldine they would have to shut up their store and it would be a great inconvenience to them. .His Worship said he would arrange for some Magistrate to sit in Teniuka. He would write to Mr Baddeley and try to get him to hear the case, or be would get Mr Robinson of Oamaru to hear it. Due notice would be given to both parties as to the date on which the ceae could fee heard. BOUNDARY DISPUTE. : Mr Tosswill, on behalf of Mr Badd, stated that Mr A. M. Clark, who had been appointed arbitrator to settle the dispute between Messrs Inwood and Badd, had declinsd to act, and asked His Worship to do something in the matter; His Worship said he would appoint tome one but he had not seen any one yet. The Court then rose.