RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1526, 1 July 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, June SO, 1886.

[Before A, M. Clark and D. In wood, Esqrß.,J.P.'B.j

SLAUGHTERING WITHOUT A LIOK^SB.

Philip Wareing was charged with having slaughtered pigs without a license.

Mr Raymond appeared for the County Coancil.

The defendant pleaded guilty, and said the prosecution had arisen out of the ease he had recently in Court. Mr Clark paid that slaughtering pigs was carried on throughout the district, and that it was not generally known to be an offence. Under these circumstances the Bench would inflict a fine of only ss, and costs. JUMPING OFF A TBAIN, Robert Yvortbiugton was charged with having on the 18th day of June quitted a railway carriage while the train was in motion.

W. Alderton : I am Stationmaster at Temuka. On the 18th of June the defendant jumped off the train as it came up to the platform. He refused to give his name and used strong language by suying'l was "—— smart." I gave him in charge to the police. .j«.<..

The delendnnt said ihe train was hardly in motion. It did not go three feat beyond wbsre he jumped off. The stationmaster never asked his name. Qe told the police to take bis name. Constable Guerin gave evidence with reference to defendant bsing given in chargo. The constable did not see the defendant jump off. A fine of 20a aud costs was influcted, CIVIL CASES. Temuka Road Board v. John Malark^y—Claim, £6 2s 6d. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Tosswiil for the defendant.

Mr Tosswiil applied lor an adjournment as Mr Beßwick was not present. The case was partly beard befoie Mr Beswick who nonsuited it, and it was right that he should hsar it as lie (Mr Tosswiil) had exactly the same objection to raise now, as the case had beeu again brought before the Court the dame way. Mr Aspinall denied that the case had been heard by Mr Beswick. He accepted a nonsuit without going into the case. He would have no objection to an adjournment only that this was the last day the Board had to collect money so as to secure the subsidy. Mr Tosswiil said the position of the Board would not be improred if judgment were given, as be would certainly appeal. The Court decided not to grant the adjournment. Mr Tosswiil said that in that case he would raise the same objection which he bad raised the last day. The plaintiffs must be nonsuited on the ground that the Board had not brought the case into Court in a proper form. Tbsy had sued in the name of the Temuka Road Board, whereas they ought to have sued in the name of the inhabitants of the Temuka Road District, this being a Corporate name according to lection 23 of the Act, This was decided in the case of Sealey v. Levels Road Board, in Timaru, by Mr Beswick, and it was on this point the case was nonsuited last time. The Board was only the executive of the people, and could not sue in their own name.

Mr Aspinali urged that tbe section quoted gave no power to sue at all. He directed attention to section 26 of the Rating Act, under which the Board bad power to sue, and to section 114 of the Road Board Act. He insisted that tbe case had been brought properly before the Court. In Sealey v. Levels Road Board th« Board were the defendants, which made a great difference. The case had not been argued before the Resident Magistrate yet. He felt perfectly certain that bis contention would be found correct. Mr Clark : We have decided to hear the case. There is no use in arguing.

George Bolton, formerly Clerk to the Board, proved that tbe amount claimed was due, and that a claim had been made on Malarkey for the money. He put ia the rate-book. Mr Tosswill objeoted to the ralebook going in as evidence, as it was not properly signed. He referred to sections 18 and 21 of the Act in support of bis contention. Mr Avpinall held that the book being signed at the end was sufficient, and that it was not necessary that each leaf should be signed.

The Court took this view of v the cas<». George Dysen, Clerk to the Board, gave evidence to the effect that the amount w«8 still duo.

This being the plaintiff's case,

Mr Tosswi'l Baid he would call no evidence, but would rely on the two points he had raised. Ho did not think it right that their Worships should give a decision directly opposite to that given by the Resident Magistrate on the same Bench a week or two ag*, when the case was nonsuited on the same point. It was a breach of etiquette, and a most extraordinary thing for the Road Board to set at naught the decision of the Resident Magistrate by bringing the case in the same way after he had nonsuited it,

Mr Aspinall complained that his learned friend's objections were miserably technical.

Mr Tosswili: lam paid for appearing on behalf of my client, and I shall raise any point I possibly can. Mr Aspinall said that witb regard to the strictures passed on the Temnlca Koad Board, be felt perfectly satisfied that there was no other way of bringing tbe case before the Court, lhe Resident Magistrate recommended bim to accept a nonsuit, and he did so without having argued the point. As Mr Tosswili had threatened to appeal, he would ask their Worships to order that the money be paid into Court, if the appeal were granted. After some consultation Mr Clark said the Bench could not agree as to a verdict. They would adjourn the c»se for a week, or let it go for decision to the Resident Magistrate. Mr Tosswili: That is what I wanted at first, and the other side ought to have jumped at it. Mr Aspinall said he had no option, as this was the last day the Board had for collecting money so ai to get the subsidy. lie bad no objection to the Resident Magistrate hearing it.

After some farther converse ion it was decided to allow the case to go to tbe Resident Magistrate. Mr Aipin»ll: And have it all reargued agMi'n. Mr Clark: Yes. Temuka Road Board v. F. R. Oldfield—Claim L 5 12a 6d,

Mr Aipinall appeared for the plaintiff. The claim was proved by Messrs Bolton and Dyson, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. Same v. W. Christmas, junr.— Claim LI 3s 4d,

Mr Aspinall for the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Same v. G. Christmas—Claim 7s 6d. (judgment for the amount claimed and costs.

Elizabeth Heap v. A. Reeve—Claim L2 6i6d.

Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and as there was no defendant judgment was,given. fdTtnV amount claimed and costs. [Before J. Talbot and D. Inwood, Jfcqs. J.P.'s]. TEESFASS ON THH RAILWAT. Ellen Grant was charged with having allowed two calves belonging to ber to wander on the railway. Mr Tosswiil appeared for defendant. Constable Morton asked the Court to compel Mrs Grant to appear personally. Mr Tosswiil pointed out that she was appearing by her solicitor, and that her husband was present. The Bench decided not to insist on Mrs Grant appearing. ( J«mes Curtis, ganger on the railway, gave rridtnce to the tffect that on the Ist of Jane the calves were on the line. The railway fence is in good order, bat the other fence is bad. To Mr Tosswiil: Idp anything about the fence. It ii not good. It is burned dow» near Mr Brown's, but there are other .placet worse.

A. Grant: I know the fence. .It is not a proper fenc?. It was burned br tbe railway people. I am six years living there, and never before bad » cow on the railway until they .burned dowi my fence.

George Dyson : I know the crossings known as Tavender'a and Petersen's. The fence on the railway has been burned five or six yards.

Mr iosswill raised the objection that the information was bad, as the line ought to have been described as the railway from Uurunui to Waitaki, whereas it was described as the railway from fiurunui to the Bluff. .He also showed that the portion of railway where the calves were found was not fenced on both sides, as required by tbe Act, and asked the case to be dismissed on these grounds.

The Court held that the fence belonged to a private owner, and that it was his fault it wag out of repair. Fined 10s and costs. No witnesses expenses were allowed. Patrick O'Meara was charged with having allowed four horses belonging to him to wander on the railway, on the 14th of June last.

A. Russell gave evidence to the tffsct that on tbe day mentioned in the information he found four horses on the railway, near the Arowhenua Station. Tbey had been there before..".' The horses were impounded. y Mr Toss will said a portion of this railway was never fenced, j ~■■.•=; P. O'Meara gave evidence to the -<■ effect that then was not, and never was, a fence on about 12 yards of the line. He had often seen cattle on the line,

A. Russell, recalled, admitted that there was a part of the line on which there wbb no fence. He believed the tence was taken down by Mr Wilton a roa J led into tbi railway where there, was no fenco. Mr Tosswili contended that at tbt railway was not fenced no fine could be inflicted,

Mr Talbot said that in this the charge would be dismissed, ap apparently it was the fault of the Government that there was no fence tbere.

UNBEGIBTBBKD DO«S. W. J. Jack was with having two unregistered dogs in hit possession, The defendant admitted the charge and said they bad been registered since* He asked the Court to consider that he had registered dogs for the last 16 years.—Pin«d lGiJfoi each dog,

CIVIL CASES. Temuka Uoad Board v. W. Christmas —Cl*ira 10a.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. .

J, Haylmrat v. Barratt—Claim 12s,— Judgment by default for the amount clnitntd and costs.

The cases of Sullivan v. Jonen, Haar r. Bridges, and the Winchester boundary dispute Inwood v, Budd, were until next week. The Court then rose,