RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 3388, 6 August 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TEMUKA — Wednesday, August sth. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., 8.M., and J. Talbot, Esq., J.P.) RIOTOUS BEIIAVIOUB. T. King, W. Scott, J. F. Douglas, E. Eadbourne, E. King, G. Hobbs and J. Morgan were charged on the information of the Police that on July 11th last at Temuka they did unlawfully behave m such a manner m view of passers by m a public place, that a breach of the peace might have occurred. Mr Lynch appeared for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Morton said that about half past eight on the evening of the day m question a large crowd passed the Police Station, headed by men carrying a gallows with an effigy hanging from it, and proceeding alongside the Road Board paddock halted opposite tho residence of Mr M. Quinn. The crowd was hooting and yelling at tho time. Douglas gave instructions for the procesßion to halt ; Radbourne and Hobba wore on each side of the gullows supporting it, E. King being under the cross-tree, and Scott was carrying a slush lamp. Witness told accused that they had proceeded far enough. Morgan then called out, "Burn the ." There was between 50 and 100 people congregated round the gallows. Tho proceedings gave great offence to the friends of Mr Quinn, one of whom called out that they were a lot of cowards, and offered to fight the best man amongst them. If the police had not been present and interfered, a breach of the peace would m all probability have occurred. To Mr Lynch witness said when he got up to the crowd tho light was put out, but he struck a match and took the names of the accused. Constable Guerin said lie saw the crowd, and proof"'-'! ".-:tli Constable Morton to the place. jL. ■■ •• ■• TCing, Radbourne, and Morgan taking prominent parts, whilst T. King was marching behind playing the " Dead March " on a cornet. For the defence Mr Lynch eaid he would call each, of the accused m turn. The only one called, however, was J. F. Douglas, who denied being near the gallows, and stated that he was m the crowd trying to prevent a fight. In reply to the Police, Douglas denied that ho had helped to carry the gallows past the Road Board office, but m reply to a question put by the Bench at the request of the Police said he would not deny that he had helped to carry it during the procession. He was thereupon told to stand down by His Worship, who severely censured him for the way m which he had given his evidence, and stated that he had nearly committed perjury. His Worship m giving his decision said he would put a stop to this kind of offence. It was a cowardly thing for men to burn a man m effigy or insult him m any way for no other reason tban that he might have said something that was not popular. Each of the accused would be fined 10s and costs. Several said they had no money to pay the fine, and His Worship said m that ease they would have to go to gaol for 48 hours. The charge laid by Douglas against M. Quinn for assault on the sumo Digufe was then called on, but was withdrawn on the application of Mr Lynch, who appeared for Douglas. His Worship said under the circumstances the Court would reduce the fines m the previous cases to Is each and costs or 12 hours. Constable Morton at a later stago informed the Bench that he could not lock the men up because of want of sufficient accommodation at the lock-up. His Worship then ordered the accused to bo detained m Court until the Court rose. VEHICLE UNATTENDED. J. Norton, charged with allowing his horse and dray to stand on a public road unattended, was fined ss. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for amount claimed by default was given m tho civil cases F. Storey v. W. Naylor, claim £5 14s, and J. Blytho V. 0. Smith, claim £4 Is. J. Bryan v. W. Slieedy— Claim, £10 10s for loss sustained on pigs purchased by plaintiff as agent for defendant, and sold at defendant's risk nnd expense m consequence of defendant's refusal to tike delivery. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff ; Mr Lynch for defendant. The defonco set up was solely that plaintiff was not the agent of defendant. This, however, was upset on the plaintiff producing telegrams showing that ho had had authority to purchase, and judgment was accordingly given for the amount claimed and costs. J. Moorhcad v. J. Gregg— Claim £33 19s for threshing. Mr Raymond for plaintiff ; Mr Aspinall for defendant. The sum of £28 13s was paid iDto Court, and a set-off of £1 4s for labor was put m, the balance, £3 14s for food nnd overcharge being disputed. Judgment waa given for tho amount paid into Court, each party to pay their own costs.