RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 795, 17 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON. -To-day. (Before Joseph Beswick, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness —Richard Poole, brought up from Rakaia, was charged with drunkenness and obscene language, and fined 20s on each charge. The Prince of Wales’ Birthday.—J. W. M‘Rae was charged under the Borough by-laws, with discharging firearms on the 9th inst., Prince of Wales’ Birthday. Mr Branson appeared for defendant, and said “we will admit firing off something—but not fire-arms.”—Ser-geant Felton having deposed to hearing the discharge on the night of the day in question, Constable Daly followed the Sergeant and corroborated his statement. —Me Branson: You have been a soldier, I believe, constable ?—The witness said he had not.—Mr Branson: What ! never in the service 1 Why, I thought you had been. Well, never mind. You did not see anything disloyal it it did you ? Mr Branson, then addressing his Worship, said that they would admit firing off the article in question, and diving in his bag he produced a toy cannon about six inches long. “ That, your Worship,” said the counsel for the defence, “ is the terrible weapon we are charged with using.” (Laughter.) “Really, your Worship,” continued Mr Branson, “ there is nothing very serious in the case. The defendant fired off this little cannon twice in his stable, for the amusement of his children. There is nothing in the by-law, although I say it, who am solicitor for the Council.” (Laughter.) His Worship said the case would be dismissed, although it must be distinctly understood that firearms of any kind must not be let off within the Borough. Alleged Breach of the Licensing Act. —F. L. K. Hill, licensee of the Somerset Hotel, was charged with committing a breach of the Licensing Act by serving J. Dudley, a prohibited person, with liquor. Mr Hill desired to make a statement. His barman, who had only been three days in his employ at the time the man Dud'ey was served, had supplied him unwittingly, and not knowing that he was a prohib ted person. Sergeant Felton said that everyone in the town knew Dudley. It was quite true that the barman had supplied the man. Defendant then called his barman, who stated that he had only been three days at the house when he served Dudley. Defendant said he had repeatedly turned the man out of his house himself, an I he was constantly hanging about.—His Worship oons.dored the charge proved, although ho would not endorse defendant’s license under the circumstances. He would be fined 20s. Breaches of Borough By-Laws,—

John Doherty for driving cattle during prohibited hours, was fined 10«.—H. Shears, for leaving a dray unattended, was fined 10s. Obscene Language.—J. Fisher was fined 20s for this offence. Donald McKenzie’s Case.—lt transpired that in the case of Donald McKenzie, charged with passing valueless cheques, and who was committed for trial at the last sitting of the Court, that the depositions of the witnesses were not taken until after the committal of the accused, and to this Mr Branson objected. The witnesses were in attendance to-day to sign the depositions, and Mr Branson asked his Worship what he was going to do in the matter. The man had been committed for trial, and he (Mr Branson) would submit that the depositions could not be taken after that. Mr Beswick thought otherwise. —Mr Branson : Very well "your Worship. I merely ask you to take’ notice that I object to the whole thing, that is all. I reserve all rights. The accused was then once more formally committed. A Sa» Case.— A young girl named Ruddick, a daughter of Robinson Ruddick, farifter, Ashburton Forks, was brought up as a neglected child. The sister, who is in service in Ashburton, deposed that the girl had not been quite “ right in her head ” since their father had'struck her with a tomahawk some time ago. Her father had refused to keep her, and she was with the witness. The girl, who is only about 15 years of age, was remanded for a week for medical examination. We understand tbat she has b >en in service until lately.

CIVIL CASES. Murdock v. Eden. —Claim L 4 18s, for medical attendance. Mr Branson appeared on behalf of the agent for Dr Murdoch. Defendant denied the liability. Mr Branson ; Have you or have you not a woman residing in your house ? i 'efendant admi ted he had. Mr Branson: Very well; was that woman confined in your house ? Defendant said she was.—Mr Branson ; Very well; is she living with you?—whether as your wife or not is no matter.— Defe-dant refused to answer the question. Judgment for the amount and costs. Kelly v. Welsh. —Claim Ll2. Mr Br mson for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for defendant. This was a claim for services in connection with the leading round of an entire horse. Plaintiff contended he was a partner of the defendant’s. Defendant denied the partnership, but admitted that plaintiff was to share the net proceeds of the season after all expenses were paid. Defendant had already been out of pocket by the horse, and had refused, therefore, to pay Kelly’s demand.—Several witness s having been examined, and counsel having addressed the Bench, Mr Branson characterised the case as an attempt on We’sh’s part to “do” Kelly out of his money. Plaintiff was nonsuited without costs.