RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1523, 24 June 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuk a—Wednesday, June 23,1886. (Before D. In wood and F. H. Barker, Esqs., J.P.’s.) TRESPASS ON TOE RAILWAY. Henry Qoodey was charged with having allowed cattle belonging to him to wander on the railway on the 14th May last. Constable Guerin proved the offence. The defendant said the cattle did not belong to him. They belonged to his wife. Constable Morton asked that the case might be struck out, so ts to summon the wife. The defendant asked his name to be struck out, and his wife’s to be inserted instead, so as to save any further trouble. Id reply to the Bench, he said he was prepared to pay any small fine that would be inflicted for his wi f e. A fine of 10s was inflicted. Andrew Grant was charged witli having allowed three calves belonging to him to wander on the railway on the Ist June. Mr Tosswill appeared on behalf of the defendant. ,

J. Curtis said ho found three calves on the railway. They were impounded. To Mr Tosswill: I have seen the fence. Ido not think it was burned, I took very little notice of it. I do not know who burned it. Then is a piece burned where Brown’s cows came out. I should say nothing if it is swom that it was burned.

Thornes Egan stated that on the Ist ot June the calves were on the railway near Paterson’s crossing. Saw them there before. They belonged to Mr Grant.

To Mr Tosswill: I took no notice of the fence, as it was none of my business.

Mr Tosswill submitted the information was bad, on the ground that it stated that the calves wore on the railway between Amberley and Bluff. There was no such railway in existence, it was now the railway between Huruuai and the Bluff. He pointed out that in the case of the Railway v. Heffornan the Resident Magistrate dismissed the information on a similar plea. Heffarnan was charged with having travelled from Waitohi to Timaru without a ticket. It was held that .no such railway existed, and the information was dismissed. 1 The Bench refused to entertain the objection, A trespass hn(T been committed, and that was what they bad to consider. Mr Tosswill oould appeal if he liked.

Mr Tosswill, after some further argument, called Andrew Grant, who stated that the calves belonged to his wife, not to him. The railway was not fenced on both sides. The railway men burned down his fence. John Lawson stated the calves were released by George McMillan for Mr Grant, The case was dismissed.

Job Brown was charged with having allowed a cow belonging to him to wander on the railway on the Ist of June. J. Curtis, ganger on the Mne, gave evidence tu the effect that on the day mentioned in the information, the cattle train threw a cow belonging to Mr Brown off the line. The cow was claimed by Mr Brown’s man. To Mr Brown: The fence is not in good condition. It baa been burned. It is good except where it has been burned. Have been on the railway for two years, but don’t know how it was burned.

David Bryan, an employee of Mr Brown, stated that he found Mr Brown’s cow thrown off the railway line and killed.

To Mr Brown ; There are three chains of the fence burned down. It was burned by sparks from the railway engines. J. Brown stated that in consequence of the fences being burned down he wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer, stating that the grass was allowed to grow on his side of the railway, while it was cleaned off on the other side. This grass took fire and conveyed the flames to his (Mr Brown’s) fence. He also asked to have a quick fence planted on his side as on the other side. He received a reply that this was done. The Government was the cause of the cow being there. Mr Inwood said it was certainly a hard case. He had been in a similar position himself, and he did not know he might be summoned. They, however, could do nothing but fine, defendant They would inflict a small fine of ss, as it was a bard case. Constable Morton applied for witness’ expenses, which were not allowed. CIVIL CASES. J. Beri v. Cope (Maori)—Claim £l. Judgment summons. The plaintiff said defendant came to pay it, and went away to take money out of the PostoflSce Savings Bank, but never returned. He was shepherd for Mr Page, and had plenty of money. Ordered to pay within )4 days, or go to gaol for a week. The case of Haar v. Bridges was adjourned for a week, as the Court had no power to deal with it.