RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3977, 13 December 1873, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, December 12. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.)

DRTTNK,

Antonio Diokenbon wae fined 5s fbr this offence.

OBUEI.TY. TO ANIMALS

Joseph Pudney and J. Lovelock were oharged with cruelty to\animals. Sergeant Price informed the Court; that he found the defendants heating a horse with a clothes' prop, with which they rigorously belabored the animal. The defendants proved that the horse was very vicious and unmanageable, so much so that they were unable to bring him under proper control by any ordinary means. As this statement was ascertained to be pretty oorreot, the defendants were dismissed with a caution. VIOLENT ASSAULT. John Douglas appeared on remand to answer to a charge of assault. The defendant resided in the house of a mau named Prince, who, like the famous Jimmy Kiddle, had a turn for playing on the fiddle. Douglas, however, having an objection to Prince indulging in this pleasant pastime on the Sabbath Day, knocked the fiddle out of Prince's hand, and Prince retorted with a cut across Douglas's head with the bow. Scuffling ensued, in which the would-be Prince of fiddlers got worsted, hence these proceedings. Douglas had already undergone two or three days incarceration, and was let off with the mitigated penalty of lOa and costs. THBEATENIITO IANSUAGE. Isabella Keith was charged with having used threatening language towards Henry Meeob. Prosecutor deposed : On the 21st November I »ni a man in my employ were putting up a fence between Mrs Keith's land and mine when Mrs Keith oame up in a violent temper and called him a low, loafing fellow, and after pulling down the line, she eaid that he would not be able to put np a fence at all without robbing other people. She had a piece of wood in her hand, and assumed a defiant attitude. <

By Mr Buckley : The land about which there was a dispute was formerlj owned by my wife, but the defendant has frequently claimed the land as the wife of Captain Blair, deceased. I am prepared to swear moat positively that I never exposed myself immodestly to Mrs Keith, nor did I ever use threatening language towards her. John Bradley said he waa in the employ of Mr Meeoh on the 21st November. I was engaged in ereoting a fence for Mr Meech on that day, and Mr Meech said I was to be careful to put up the fence on his own land. Mrs Keith came and stopped the erection of the fonce, and Mr Meeoh told her to be careful. She then commenced to call him an old loafer, and said if he had Dot sold grog on the sly and robbed people he would not be able to fence the ground. Examined by Mr Buckley : Mr Meech had no stick in his hand, nor did I hear him say anything to Mrs Keith. Mr Meech was very quiet, and did not molest Mrs Keith. He went on to the ground in a quieb go-to meeting manner. Mr Buckley said he would not trouble the Benoh with any remarks upon the present case, but would go on with the oross action, j when he would prove in evidence that Mr j Meeoh was a very troublesome neighbor, and that Mrs Keith had to keep her children away from Mr Meech on aocouut of his being an improper person for them to go near. Isabella Keith, the plaintiff, explained the circumstances which led up to the dispute on the 21et November. On that day I went out and found that Mr Meech had fastoued a cord to my fence. I pulled it down, and then Mr Meech came up and asked me to strike him. I said I would not care to demean myself by striking a low man like him. I said that if he were a proper man I should Btrike him io a minute. I told him I wished he would discontinue prowling around my premises. His conduct was disgraceful. He was continually cursing and swearing, muoh to my annoyance.

Examined by Mr Quick : The line put up by Mr Meech was on my own ground, about which there was no dispute. It was also on my eide of the peg* which were put in by Mr Briscoe, the surveyor. The piece of land in dispute was purchased and paid for by my former husband, Captain Blair, though I cannot produce any deed of conveyance. The reason I paid rent on this land was that I was in Napier at the time, and was not certain what part of the land he claimed. The purchase money was paid to Mra Sancto, now Mrs Meech. I consider Mr Meooh a public nuisance, and a great annoyance to the neighbors.

Mrs Kennedy deposed to the fact of Mrs Sancto having told her that she bad Bold the disputed piece of land to Captain Blair for £8. That was in 1868,

By Mr Quick : I am not aware that the land was not Mrs Sancto's at the time she sold it. Even if ifc were not her's she would nob be the first person who hod claimed things which did nob belong to her. As to Mr Meech's charaoter, that was too well known to require fresh proof. Aa Mrs Keith had said, ha was a public nuisance. Mr Quick said that was a very vague term, and simply amounted to nothing. He might himself be charged with being a public nuisance, and it might be difficult for him to disprove it.

Mr Buckley was sorry to hear his learned friend make Buch an admission.

Mr Quick retorted that he felt equally positive that the difficulty of disproving such a charge would be muoh greater in his learned friend's caße.

His Worship said the case was a very trumpery one, and should never have been brought into Court. It wae not to be expeoted that he should bind a person like Mrs Eeit,h over to keep the peace for fear of any* thing she was likely to do to Mr Meech, and as there had not been sufficient evidence of bodily fear adduced he should decline to bind Mr Meeeh over. If the two could not manage to reside near each other as neighbors without falling into such a oat and dog existence, it might become necessary to apply some stringent remedy, but in the present instance he should record " no jurisdiction" as the case involved a point of disputed boundary.

hvbn:

■NOt GOESE,

Isabella Keith was fined 5s for burning gorse without permission within the town boundary, Mr Meech giving evidence for the prosecution in the case. MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY. Francis Waters, Henry Edwards, and Richard Edwards, three boys, were charged with damaging the premises of Mr Q-eorgo Hunter in Custom-house street, to the extent of 5?,

Henry Edwards pleaded guilty to the charge, and the other two boys were dismissed.

Mi* Hunter stated that on Sunday afternoon ho saw three boys and two girls pas 3 his wharf in Custom House Btreot, and heard a noise immediately afterwards. As they ran away, one of the boys threw away a piece of a window sash, part of his premises, and witness haying followed them up, secured ono of the boys, and handed him over to a constable. Mr Hunter stated that all the windows in his store and in Captain Rhodes' had been completely destroyed, and the buildings themselves very much damaged by boys, and

his only objeot in coming into Court was to have it made known that these depredations could not be carried on with impunity.

Mr Edwards, the father of two of the boys, stated that when returning from Sunday School, one of the boys just touched the sash in the window, when a piece fell out, whioh showed marks of having been broken for some time previously. He sympathised very much with Mr Hunter, whoso premises had been very badly damaged by the boys who frequented the neighborhood, but he felt convinced that his boys had no intention of adding to the destruction.

Mr Hunter wished the Resident Magi.-! rate to understand that he did not press feu the infliction of a penalty, as he believed the foot of the case having been brought before the Court would be sufficient to put a stop to the spirit of destructiveness, from whioh property in Custom House street had suffered for some time past.

Inspector Atohison pointed out to the Bench and (o the offenders that upon conviction for a Becond offenoe they would be liable to a penalty of £5 in addition to being whipped. His Worship remarked that it was yery annoying to owners of property to find that they could not lea»e their houses or places of business vacant for oven a few days, without running the risk of having them gutted and wrecked by mobs of unruly boys. In the present oase, however, the defendants did not appear to have acted from any premeditated design or mischievous intent, and he should dismiss the case, but he trusted the present proceedings would be a caution to them as well as to other boys. In future cases, where the slightest premeditation could be proved, he should most certainly order the offenders to be whipped.