RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2054, 3 June 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tejtcka—Monday, June 2, 1890. [Before C. A. Wray, Eeq., E.M.] HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS. John Towuer w«s charged wi'h being drank on the 31st May in a public place, and also with being an habitual drunkard. Accused pleaded not guil'y. '■•■ Constable Egin paid (hat on S*tu»d>y night he arrested accused in front of the Ray a! Hotel. He 08ine into town about the beginning of March, and hid been drinking more of less heavily ever sine, except when in gaol. Constable Morton corroborated prey one witueeb' evidence. Had assisted Constable Egan to convey accused to the ftook-up. There were three conviction* against accused since the 4 h of March. Accused asked to be fined, as he had work to go to. Accused was sentenced to 14 days' imprisouinent, and ordered to p*y costs of maintenance. AN OLD OFFENDER. Georgn Ramsay wubcharged with b»iog drunk and disorderly, r alfo with resisting the police, and further with using obscene and disgusting laigu'ige within the hearing of tbe public. AH the rfl>ncpa took place on May 30. . . ilOonatable Morf&n gave evidence as to. seeing the accused' in the WnHiogford Hotel in an intcxioted condition. Hid asked the licensee if she desired ;his prp;senee there, and fhe. complained ih-»t he had used bad language. Arrested accused in the street on the charge of drunkenness. He procaeded quietly for a time, but subsequently, and nit witness iu the mouth, This occurred about noonday.

Replying to',accused : I arrested you in ■ the middle of the s'reet. I paid, "Up .-•yoa go us you did before." You went quie.tly after the railwny crossing. Your fort- did not jam between the rails of the crossing. My, boy assisted me to lock you up.' Could not say if there were »ny passers-by. •-'• '■•■'■ ,;MrsrEercevei,flicensee of the Wallingford'Hotel, gave evidence as to accused • beiiig drunk, arid osing bad language. - Had-asked hijn,to-leave the lions'". .; Accused made a statement to the tffrc ■that the police gave him no rest, but hunted him bll over the place. He denied ; any attempt at resistance, alleging that ; ; his foot was j named in the railway :/ crossing.

: His Worsh/p said accused appeared to be incorrigible, and sentenced him to three months for assault and ,three months fo using obsene l*Dgu»ge, the sentences to run concuirently. He was also ordered to.pay some former costs against him. ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ■ ■'■"■'- ■■ " - ■■ Acr. Michael McAteer was charged with permitting persons to remain in a state of drunkenness ;on. his licensed premises known an the Hoy*l Hotel, Temuka. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr W. N. Cathro, who appeared for accused, asked under what Bection of the Act the inf <rm i iliou had been laid. His Worship said section 146. Mr Cathro quoted quoted from the Act, and asked that the information might be dismissed. Accused was charged with allowing persons in a state of drunkenness to remain upon his premises, which was not an c ffence against the Act. There was nothing to show that ihey got drunk in tl.e house, and there was no law to compel a licensee to turn these n.eo out. His Worship was of opinion that the information was wrongly worded. He would permit its withdrawal, so that it might be laid in amended form next Court day. Accused was then und«r section 29 of Police (Jffdnces £c/., with having used. I*ngusg9 jiabje to pause a breach of the peace, ■ Pleaded not guilty.

Mr Cathro defended. Constable Morton stated that on the 23rd he proceeded to the Royal Hotel. He heard a noise in a back room behind the bar. There were seven or eight men, to whom he drew licensee's attention. This was between 9 aod 10 on Friday night, Told McAteer that he had no right to keep such men about. Accused told him that he would look after them, but that witness' place was in the Btreer. Witness remonstrated, but accused called him a—— scoundrel and a hypocrite, and ordered him to leave the bar. He said he did not pay £45 a year to allow witness to walk through his house. He then took witness by the arm, and mide hm leave the house.

By Mr Cathro : The language used took place in the bar.

Mr Cathro said that this information was laid under sub-section 29 of the Police Offences Act. By reference to section J 8 of the same Act it was plain that a bar was not a public place within the meaning of the Act. His Worship concurred, and ordered the the information to be dismissed. IBE CUMINS AND LOTTERIES ACT. Henry Edward Smith and Robert Smith were chmged with conducting a lottery on 27th April. Mr Hay appeared for dtfondants, and pleaded not guilty. William Dfßenzy, farmer, Winchester rsmembered the 27th April last. A social gathering was held in connection with the opening of tlii Sunday school at Winchester. Knew of a bullock aod a pony b'ing disposed of by tickets in two hats. Witness explained the method unde'r which the prizfl was decided on. The number of those partaking in the lo'tery were in one hat, snd blanfes and one ticket marked pr a» in the other. Two children drew the ticket*. By the bench : Did not win the bullock. Wos the donor of it to the church. By Mr Hay : The whole preceedingg weie for the good of the church. The precaution had been taken to o'ocain a permit from the Coloni 1 Secret). The The only position taken by Mr Robert Smith was to hold the two hits. He took no part in promoting the lottery. He w«s I neither, the owner of the bullock, nor a I prize winner. By ConstHb'e Morton : Believed that Mr Henry Smith tried to get subsc ibers I for th« pony, but did n~t actually pee him. ' A. W. Gaze, accountant, Temuka, give evidence to being present on the occasion j referred to. H«d seen a lotloiy conducted in a manner similar to that described by accused. W»s interested in tho lot'ery for the pony. Did not win it. Only heard on the way home who the actual winners were.

Constable Morton said that he should api.ly for a remind. The Inst witness had told him in the presence of Mr Deßpnzy that Messrs R. and H. Smith were interested in the lotierien. Witness sMd that was the case. Mr R. Smith gve the poney, and Mr H. Smith had assisted work off another lottery, but he really could not say wh:t the articles Were. He was not piesent al 1 tho time. Mr Hay said that there was no as to a lottery being held, only the police appeared to have got hold of the money persons, At any rate, the fiu.lt, if any, was of excessive zes>l. H. E. Smith, one of the defendants, admitted aseistine in getting up a rail* for a bride c*ke. That was the only o'ie be was interested in.

His Worship dismissed the information, • REACH OT JISHERIES CONSERVATION ACT,

Thomas Egm and Henry Smallridge were charged with unlawfully taking and killing a trout, contrary to the regulations.

Mr Saltnond appeared for the Geraldine County'Acclimatisation Society. Mr Hay appeared for defendants. T, R. Roberts, ranger for the Geraldine County Acclimatisation Society, gave evidence that he saw defendants in a boat on the Temuka river, they were spearing. He concealed himself. Smallridge afterwards passed him carrying *fl >under. Egan walked another way carrying a kerosene tin. Waited until he came back. Asked him if he h»d been fishing. Saw a trout in the tin he was carrying. He had a spear. Told accused, he (witness) would take charge of the trout. Accused made no objection but asked h m to throw it into the river and say nothing about it. Smallridge also asked him to throw it in as they were only poor men. Declined to do so, saying he would speak to the secretary. By Mr Hay : Saw ihem spearing. They brought the boat back, and tied it in the usual place near Mr Rooney'a works. The boat was used for fishing, prebably for trout. The boat was supposed to be Mr Rooney's, but might be for the convenience of the pubic. Was 50 yards from the boat. Lost sight of Egan under a terrace after he l<sft the boat.

By the Bench : Egan and Smallridge left the boat in its usual place, and Egan went down the river to where they had been fishing. Mr H iy, in defence, called Heory Smallridge, laborer at, Mr Roooey's wool works. Remembered the 23rd May. A bo*t was kept ia the river bank near Rooney'a. Went with Egan about two o'clock in the afternoon to spear fl .uoderi". The boat was thpre half full of water. There was a trout in it about a pound weight. Noticed it was speared. Egan threw it out on the bank when they biiied out the boat. Slung the fish out into the bare paddock. When they had finished fishing Egan went bick for the trout. The tin Egan carried was for bailing out the boat.

By the bunch : Went to the fiabiog place before they bailed the boat out. By Mr Sa'mond : The trout wns to the hest of his belief at tht bottom of the boat. It looked pretty fresh. It had been speared. Could not say why the trout had been left there. Threw it away b'cauce they koew it was wrong to have one in their possession. Did noc know why Egan went back with the kerosene bin. It might have been for fun. They took the fish to show the men at the works. When Roberts stopped them they did not tell him they had found the fish. By Mr Hay j Ooe stood at eaoh end of the boat when they went to the fishing place. The kerosene tin]was brought from the fellmoogery. Thomas JBgan, laborer at Booney's : The boat was kept whfre anyone could get at it. About 2 o'clock on the 23rd went with last witness to fish for flounders. He reiterated the previous witness's evidence as to the fjndiDg of the trout. He ' He swore that the §rst tirno he. saw the I trout was when bailing the boat. Slung [ it up on the terr«e» t Thought that anjr

one coming along might thing they were fishing for trout. Smallridge caught one flounder. Witneßß had nothing. Took the fish Dp to show that someone had been spearing. Vvhen Roberts stopped him asked him to ovorlook it. Meant by that th»t there was not much harm in his carrying the trout. By Mr Salmond : Did not know if the trout had been killed two or three dayß. It was not a fact that witness spoored the trout that day. Positively denied it. It occurred to him that Roberts might think he had speared the trout. Did not occur to him to tell him that they had found the trout. It wsb not catching the trout that they desired Roberta to overlook. T. E. Roberts, recalled by the Bench : It was about half^past three when he arrived at the place and saw defendants in the boat fishing. The fish looked fresh. Hiii Worahip was of opinion that there had been a distinct breach of the regulations. He could not altogether accept the defendants' story as to the finding of the trout. They did not appear to have made « big bag, bat he thought they knew the illegality of the proceeding. They would be fined 60s, and costs 295, and solicitors fee 21s.

Trengrove v. Trengrove—This was a case adjourned to admit of evidenee being obtained of the position of defendants, whom he sued for maintenance, An order was now made for payment of 5a per week from a son in Christchurch, and a similar order in respect of another son in the North Island,. pending information conbeing correct. CTYIIi OASEI. Humphrey Freel v.-T. McAteer—Claim £5 for harvesting. Mr Hay for plaintiff. His original claim was for £7 7b. Had been paid £1 7s on account, and had received an order for £6 on Moody and Ziesler. The order was dishonored. Went back to work for defendant, who paid him another £l. By the Bench : Had presented the order to Moody and Ziesler, was told to bring it back when defendant's grain was delivered. Before this took place Moody died. Mr Hay gave evidence to the effect that he had endeavoured at the request of both parties to obtain the amount of £6 from the Colonial Bank, who were assignees of Mx>ody and Ziesler. T. MeAteer : Had delivsreS all his grain to the order of the Colonial Bank for Moody and Ziesler. Other people's orders had been paid. Had never received the order back, and did not know if it had been paid. By the Bench : Had presented the order the day it was received. Judgment for amount claimed, and costs. J. Meyer v. Ragu Williams. Judgment summons. Mr Salmond for plaintiff. Defendant was now examined «r to his position and means of paying. He had been ditch deaniog since harvest. Earned about 24s or 25s a week. Had 12 children, two of whom earned 2s 6d a week. He bad p»id several small accounts for stores, &c.—His Worship declined to make an order. G. H. Mogridge v. Jackson GriffinClaim £4 9* lid. Judgment eommons, Mr Salmond for plaintiff.—After •vidence hiving been taken as to defendant's means, his Worship adjourned the case for three tnontns. Job Brown v. Philip Wragg. Judgraant summons.— Order made -for payment forthwith, or, in default, 7 days. The Court then rose.