MAGISTERIAL.

Thames Star, Volume LVII, Issue 14783, 13 October 1921, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12. (Before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M.) BREACH OF BY-LAWS. \ For a breach of the by-law in cycling on the footpath, Thomas Nash, Charles Penno, James Miles, Lester Darwell, John Connelly, and Thomas Henderson, were fined 5/each and costs. For leaving a motor car without lights, B. Tunier was fined 10/and costs. LANGUAGE. , On a charge of using indecent language, John McLean, an excitable man, pleaded not guilty. Sergeant M’Donnell said that on Saturday last the accused was slightly under the •influence of liquor, and there was a •lady and a gentleman near when the language was used. The Magistrate: The offence,-is a serious one, you Avill be fined £5 and costs or in default 30 days. END .OF THE FIGHT. A charge of using threatening .behaviour in a public place within view of passers-by was brought by the police against Cumberland Cane, Edward Stewart, and N/iku Merriman. . . i Mr Garland, who appeared for Merriman and Stewart entered a plea of not guilty, while Cane pleaded guilty- . -

J. Farquharson Jones, said that on Octoberl 1, he was proceeding home, when he saw a group of men. Two men were fighting with their

.coats off . Thej l - appeared to be semiintoxicated and he went over to endeavour to stop them fighting. He was Qrdered off,'-.and shortly afterwards saw one man knocked down. It was in full view of passers-by. “It was a disgraceful and disgusting sight,” he concluded.

Constable Briggs said as a result of a complaint he investigated the matter, and interviewed the accused. .The fight was the outcome of a dispute and the man ‘Stewart was the cause of the scene.

Sergeant M’Donnell said Stewart was undoubtedly the cause of the whole troiible. ” Mr Garland said there was no evidence that the affair took place in a public place. Sergeant M’Donnell: The street is a public place. • Mr Garland: If two men fought on a private section they could not be convicted (j>f ' fighting in a public place.

Edward Stewart said that he was in the Imperial Hotel and had about two drinks. He was coming out of the hotel, when Cane called out, and followed witness out and wanted to fight. Witness went round with him and Cane took his coat off. Witness also took his coat off, had a look at him, then put his feoat on again, and said “You are the winner.” It was round the back of the shed. Witness did not fight. Sergeant M’Donnell: Why did you take your coat off?

Accused: Because the other man did. 'We were going to have a fight.

Sergeant M’Donnell: That’s 'why you took your coat off?—Yes.

When did you do any work last? — About 6 months ago. You just loaf about?—-I have no need to work.

You are a sponger on Merriman. — I live on my means. Does Merriman live on his means? —I don’t know.

Mr Garland: Cane wanted you to fight?—Yes, and when I seen he was bigger than me I gave in (laughter).

Merriman said he was round at the back of the hotel and he saw the two men with their coats off. Witness was asking Stewart to come away when Cane struck witness.

The Sergeant (pointing) : Those are some of the marks? Witness: Yes.

Sergeant: You’ve been up about thirty times?—Yes, I’ve been up before.

Witness: Yes, —You’ve been up about thirty times?—Yes, I’ve been up before.

For fighting and assaults, and using threatening behaviour ?

The Magistrate: it is a disgraceful /thing, and I am quite satisfied that Cane and Merriman were the worst offenders. Stewart had evidently thought discretion the better part of valour. Merriman and. Cane were convicted and fined £5, and Stewart £2. PHOHIBITION ORDER. Ivitty Smith was charged with a breach of her prohibition order. MrGarland entered a plea of guilty. ' Counsel asked for leniencj 7 , as this was the first offence since she took the prohibition order against herself in May last. She had met some friends from Auckland who had asked her to celebrate, and this, together with the success of- the Thames Band at the Contest had resulted in the charge. The magistrate said she had a bad : record, and fined her £3. * TIMBER ACCOUNT. ' A claim for £lO9 and £25 damages 1 was brought by Wilfred Renshaw (Mr 1 JQ s \ * - _ _ ■ ~ ' l'!

Wilfred H. Renshaw, ironmonger’s assistant, said that in 1915 his wife drew a section near Waitakaruru. In consequence of the farm coming into the family witness sold his timber yard. jHe sent materials to the farm and lived there. In order to protect the money he had put into the farm he lodged a caveat, claiming £763. After the differences and prior to lodging the caveat, he instructed a solicitor to recover the cash. In 1920 his wife wanted to sell the farm and they came to terms. The document had been lost, and she had been unable to find it. He agreed to withdraw the caveat on payment of the timber account, while Supreme Court proceedings were to be withdrawn. No amount was stated in the agreement. The account was not paid, and witness approached his wife to pay it. The document was duty signed. Witness had carried out his part of the agreement. To Mr Clendon: The property was in his wife’s name. His wife had never signed him any interest in the property. She lived on the property for four or five years. The value of the timber in the house at the farm was about £6O, while that of the shed was about £3O. Witness had not paid the account of £73 owing for the timber as he considered his Avife should pay it. , E\’idenee Avas giA'en by defendant, Avho stated that the amount to be paid for the timber was understood to be £4O, and- plaintiff was to remoA r e the caveat. Witness did not get an agreement. She left it Avith her solicitor. Witness had agreed to pay the £4O. The property belonged to her. The Magistrate said there Avas no conflict in the main points. He was inclined to accept the plaintiff’s A-er-sion that the amount of the timber contract Avas £75. That was the actual amount, and he could not say Avhere the defendant got the amount £4Q. , Judgment Avas given for plaintiff for £75 11/4; £lO damages, and costs.