RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 3303, 29 April 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMARU, Tuesday, April 28th. (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M.) DBUNKENNESS. John Bourne, charged with this offence, pleaded guilty, and was fined ss, m default 24 hours' imprisonment. DISOBEYING AN OEDBE OF TIIE COTTBT. E. J. Ellis was charged with disobeying an order of the Court providing for the support of his wife and children. Mr White appeared for complainant, who after being sworn said since February, when the order was made that her husband should pay £5 and 25s a week for the support of herself and five children, only £7 had been paid. She said a considerable sum was now owing, and that she had no means at all to support herself and the children. The defendant said he had only earned £10 since the order \vu3 made, and out of that lie had given his wife £7. Ho was now engaged cutting firewood at Birch Hill, near Mount Cook, and expected if the weathor kept fairly good, to earn about £2 per week at it. He complained very much of the cost and serious loss of timo he had been put to m attending at the Court. He Baid he was quito willing to pay as much as he could towards his wife and children's support. His Worship then, at Mr White's suggestion, adjourned the case for a fortnight, Mr Whito m the meantime to try and come to some settlement with defendant on the matter. His Worship told Ellis he had power to commit him to gaol for six months for disobeying the order, but ho did not care to exercise this power except m extreme cases. CIVII. CASES. Civil business was transacted as follows : — T. Moses v. E. Clark— Claim £18. Mr J. W. White for plaintiff ; Mr A. St. Or. Hamersley for defendant. Mr White stated that the claim was for damage caused to plaintiff's crop of oats by some pigs of defendant's. He called Thos. Moses, the plaintiff, who said : On the 3rd March last lie started to cut a crop of oats on soino land near St. Andrews, and while doing so found a sow and eleven young pigs belonging to Clark m the crop. The crop was now m stack, and he was going to to havo it cut into oaten chaff. When the crop was standing he reckoned it would yield 70 bushels to the acre, and that it would when cut turn out about three tons of chaff to the acre. Each ton ho valued at £3. About two acres of the crop were destroyed by the pigs. He saw them m the crop on the 10th March also, and on the 3rd April he found the sow m the crop by herself. He took possession of her, and Mrs Clark and her son came to his place and tried to tako the sow from him. He said if they took her he would shoot her, and as they persisted m taking her he got his gun and did so. Oats at the time tho pigs got to his crops were worth Is lOd per bushel delivered m Timaru. He applied to Clark for compensation, but received a reply that ho had better get it m Court. He then instructed his counsel to write to Mm on tho subject. (Letter produced.) To Mt Hamersley witness said : Ho expected to mako £9 per acre by cutting tho crop into chaff. There was a lire fence on one side of his land, and a ditch and wire fence on the other ; m some places two wires high and m others three. In the- gully where the pigs came m there was no fence at all; it had been washed away. The gorse hedge was about Bft high, and the wire fence about 4ft, the bottom wire -m some places being over 2ft from the ground. He had found a cow on his land now and then. . One cow ho found on the land was frightened by the Express train, and went, tlirough his fence. Ho saw the cow go on his land, and informed the owner of it. When Mrs Clark came up to him when the sow wns m his possession, she did. not Bay anything to him about damage. Miss Hamilton, who was with her, asked what damage the pig had done, and witness told her he would not take less than £5 as compensation. Ason of Mr Hamilton informed witness that Is lOd was obtainable for Danish oats. A man named Butland had no interest m tho land. He boarded with witness, and had helped him to harvest the crop. • ' : To tho Bench witness said he would have taken the £5 rather than bring the case into Court. When he spoke to Clark about it, however, he always refused to sottle it j and lie (witness) was therefore compelled to bring tho ease to Court. " John Butland, called, said : On the 3rd March ho saw pigs m the gully near to plaintiff's crop j on tho 10th he saw a sow and eleven young ones m the crop, and on the 23rd he saw some of Clark's pigs at the stooks tearing them about. On -the 3rd April he was present when Moseß took possession of a pig, and heard him demand compensation for what the pigs had done. Mrs Clark was accompanied by Miss Hamilton, who asked what damage had been done, and plaintiff said he would tako £5 as compensation. As Mrs Chirk tried to take the animal away plaintiff shot it. Witness heard that the pig was not shot dead. Ho then corroborated what tho first witnoss had said about the damage done to the crop, and added that ho had hoard Clark tell Moses to go to law about the matter and settle it m Court. To Mr Hamersley witness said he helped Moses to harvest the crop. The fences wore hardly secure m places around the land. Robert Bere, a farm laborer living at Saltwator Creek, Baid he had helped to cut plaintiff's crop of oats. The oats wore of very good quality, and would probably yield about 70 bushels to tho aero. Before it was cut he noticed ,that something had been running over it. Ho saw pigs rooting about, and he knew that nothing else but them could root about m such a manner. There might have been about two acres damaged. ■ He saw pigs m on the 12^h March and also on the 28rd, when the crop was m stook. He did not think any of the stooks had been knocked down by the pigs. Butland and witness drove them out and were taking them to the pound when two of Clark's boys drove them back. He did not know anything about tho pigs before tho 10th March. Kobert Brookland, carter, Pareora, said he commenced carting from the paddock on the 21st March. On the 23rd he saw some pigs m the paddock ; thoy were eating the heads off the oats m stook. They were there before witness went into tho paddock, but not long afterwards. Mr Hamersley asked that plaintiff be nonsuited on the ground that the fences erected by him round the crop were "insufficient to justify an action for damages being brought

against the defendant m accordance with the provisions of the Fencing Act. Mr Whito said it was only since the case came on that he was aware part of the property was unfenced. He would therefore ask His Worship to amend the particulars to meet the case. Mr Hamcrsley objected to such an amendment, as it would completely change the face of tho enso. His Worship said tho proposed amendment would make the case one of trespass instead of pno of damages. Ho would nonsuit tho plaintiff with costs and solicitor's fee, £2 6s 4d. J. J. Deeley v. M. O'Connell— Claim, £2 lls lid, for goods supplied, &<;. Mr Whito for plaintiff ; Mr Lynch for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with coßts 10s. FAILING TO PBOTIDE. Robert Proctor, on remand, was_ charged with failing to support his wife, an inmate of the Sunnysidc Lunatic Asylum. Mr Whito for plaintiff; Mr Perry for defendant. Mr Whito stated that Proctor had been repeatedly asked to provide for his wife, but had refused to do so. Ho then called Alexander Lean, who produced his appointment to act on behalf of the Superintendent of tho Sunnysido Asylum, said : Tho wife of defendant is a pationt at Sunnysido, and has been there some time. Witness has made application to tho dofendant for her maintenance, and received the letter produced from him m answer to a request made for payinont. Mrs Prcrctor had a sum of £2 odd on her when she was admitted, but other than that she had no estate to witness' knowledge. Mr Perry objected to the evidence touching on Mrs Proctor's admission on the previous occasion. Witness continuing, said he was agent for tho Public Trustee and Inspector of the Asylum. The sum found on her is now m tho hands of the Public Trustee m Wellington. Re-examined by Mr Whito : By the Lunatics Act everything found on a lunatic is sent to tho Public Triißtee. George L. Ellis said he was the father of Mrs Proctor. She had not now to his knowledge any private estate, although she had a considerable sum of money when she was married. Proctor himself had several houses when he married, but witness did not know whether they were his now. Thomas Broham, Inspector of Police m Tiniavu, said the defendant was reputed to have property. It was a common report thnt ho was about leaving the colony. James Granger was called to prove that defendant had property, and wob well able to support his wife, and also that he intonded leaving Timnru. Inspector Broham, recalled by Mr Perry, said lie got particulars about Proctor leaving tho town from several gentlemen, but refused to givo their names. He could not say whether Proctor told them he was going to leave the town. He (witness) first heard of tho rumor six weeks ago. His informants did not go to him and voluntarily tell him ; he heard it m conversation. This wus tho case for the prosecution. Mr Perry called no witnesses for tho defence, but submitted that, tho case ought to be dismissed, as it was out of His Worship's jurisdiction. Prima facie Mi's Proctor was not a destitute person, as tho Government were providing her with food and raiment, and she was not a deserted wife, as sho had been taken away from her husband without his consent. This information was laid on behalf of Dr Hocon, Superintendent of the Asylum, bnt there was no writing from Dr Hacon authorising Colonel Lean to take this action. He would also submit that thero had been no evidence adduced to show that Mrs Proctor had no estate. Mr White contended that it was clearly a case of desertion when the wife is taken away from her husband for curative purposes, and ho refuses to provide for her support. It was, m his opinion, a totally absurd point that had beon raised by his learned friend, that the authority of the plaintiff should bo m writing. It wns quite possible that she had an estate of which the plaintiff knew nothing. After briefly summing up, His Worship dismissed the case without prejudice.