MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
TE MUKA, TUESDAY,' FEB. 1703. (Before Mr C. A. Wray, S.M.) QUASI-CRIMINAL CHARGES. Police v. Frank Houston, charge of assault on Henry Heron, 23rd November last. Accused pleaded not guilty. The details of the case as given hy the police showed that accused and Heron had committed an assault upon one another in the back yard of the Star Hotel, Temuka, on the afternoon mentioned in the charge. Heron had been before the Court at the last sitting and fined 20s for his part in the affair. Accused was not served with a summons in time for his appearance at Temuka last Court day. Olliver Liddiard, licensee of the Star Hotel, gave evidence as to the nature of the assault, which was similar to that published in this paper in the account of the charge against HeronAccused gave evidence on his own behalf stating that he was not the aggressor and that he was in no way to blame. The Magistrate, in dismissing the charge, said accused seemed to have, had the worst of the encounter, -ahd ! he would take that fact into consideration and deal leniently with him Warning was given to accused against appearing before the. Court again in a similar offence, and he was discharged. Police v. John Chas. Scott, of Timaru, charged with issuing a receipt for the sum of £7 10s 6d without affixing a stamp to the value of Id. The oAence was committed on Jan. 21 last. The police in conducting the case for the prosecution narrated the circumstances of the charge, and. called Thos. Sheen, who deposed that he received a receipt from defendant in payment of a >sum of over £2, and that the receipt was not stamped. In giving evidence on his own behalf defendant acknowledged the o£ence. Witness in making out the receipt had forgotten to stamp it. He always made it a rule to stamp receipts of £2 and upwards. The Magistrate said he felt sure defendant had had no intention of defrauding the revenue, but oversight such as the present must be guarded against. He would, however inflict only a nominal • fine of ss, with costs 9s. 'CIVIL CASES. William Storey v. Jas. Hoare, claim for £4 ss.—Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and judgment was given by default for the amount claimed, with costs 12s. Hoare and Page v, E. Pilbrow.— This was a defended case, Mr Aspinall appeared‘for : plaintiffs, and Mt Perry for defendant.—The claim was for £ll ss, and was made up as follows :—4500 bricks £9 ; and laying same as a floor for coal store, £2 ss. Evidence for plaintiffs was given by Messrs J. Page, W. Hoare, and D. Mclnnes to the effect that the bricks had been delivered at defendant’s place of business, and the floor had been put down according to instructions. Defendant in his evidence stated that he did not order the bricks. He had no transactions with plaintiffs in the matter, and the bricks and the work of laying them were included in the contract which should have been completed by Mclnness. Messrs J. Blyth and J. Knight gave evidence as to the maimer in which the flooring had been put down. It was claimed to, be faulty, and Mr Blyth estimated that to relay the bricks would cost between £5 and £6. The Magistrate commented upon the contradictory nature of the evidence, but taking all. the circumstances into consideration he would give judgment for plaintiffs fpr £9, the value of the bricks. He was not however, clear who had the ordering but defendant had possession of them. Court costs 15s, and solicitor’s fee £1 6s were also allowed. Geo. J. Mason y. g, Campbell, claim for £1 6s 6d.— Judgment was given by default for the amount claimed and costs. J. Buckley v. William Graham, claim for £1 15s wages due for hoeing turnips.—Mr Aspinall appeared for defendant, and stated that ihe sum of 5s had been paid into Court by his clent as settlement of the the claim and further liability was denied. Plaintiff stated that he had entered into a contract with defendant to hop 3J acres of turnips at 10s per acre. Witness had done the work in the usual manner and had always given satisfaction to others for whom he had worked. Jas. Simpson, farmer, deposed inspected three rows of the’ hoeing done by plaintiff and he considered the work was done satisfactorily. Defendant in his evidence staled that the work had hot been done according to his instructions, and after plaintiff left "witness had to employ two men,to complete the .;cb. Messrs A.- Bis.set and W. Colville also gave evidence nph corroborated defendant’s statements. The work had not been carried out in a workmanlike mnhner. After reviewing, the evidence , the Magistrate said if was plain plaintiff had been careless in his .Work, and had not done it ,as Was evidently expected Of him;—Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount 'paid, into court, without costs. : A, F.. Andrews v. Henry. Lisdacic, claim of £2 ss, rent- due.—Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. ‘ ' f OLD AGE PENSION : i applications; ; A number of applications forrenewals of old age pensions jwere dealt ; with, several were granted, and one or two; adjourned. The De- : •puty-Registriar for the Geraldine district (Mr Mulvaney) applied to have a pension certificate cancelled ipj the ground that the pensioner had a life interest in property, the value of which was in access of the maximum allowed by law. The application was made under section 3 of the: Old Age Pensions ApJ) Amendment ;Act, 1901.—Mr Aspinall appeared in , support of the pensioner, and made certain explanations how the property in question had been dealt with. — The Magistrate withheld his jdecision. Another application for the; renewal q! a pension was adjpurned for the' purpose of allowing the police to make' inquiries into the financial position of the applicant, wno is the holder of a section of land under a 999 years’ lease from the Government. . > Anapplicant, whose pension was renewed, was cautioned by the Magistrate against intemperance. If further complaints in this respect were received from the police the pension certificate would he cancelled, ”
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TEML19030219.2.24
Bibliographic details
Temuka Leader, Issue 4013, 19 February 1903, Page 4
Word Count
1,033MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Temuka Leader, Issue 4013, 19 February 1903, Page 4
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.