RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 945, 17 May 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

ASHBURTON. -To-day. Before Joseph Beswick, Esq., R.M., and Ur. Trevor J.P. Breach of Btb L tws.—J. F. Butler, G.'Warner, W, H. Gundry, and William ileid, were each fined ss, and J. Ward, and Robert Smytho 15s, for allowing cattle to stray on the public streets. Trespass in Pursuit op Game— Alfred Fosa-waa charged, with trespassingdn pursuit cf game on May 6th. Mr Branson appeared for the defendant. William Simpson, farmer, said that the defendant and several other men were trespassing on his land on the day in question, with some dogs. Ho saw one of the dogs kill a hare in his grounds. Mr Branson for the defence, said that he would call evidence to show that the plaintiffs story was not correct, as the hare was killed by Mr Simpson’s own dog.—Alfred Foss, William Marsh and Anthony Lee, gave evidence to the effect that the defendant had only gone on to the land to call off his own dogs, which had gone after a hare. It was Mr Simpson’s dog that killed the hare. —The defendant was fined 40a and costs.

Breach op the Licensing Act.—Matthew Charles Sheppard, of the Ghertsey Hotel, was summoned on several informations. —Mr Wilding appeared on behalf of the defendant, and asked that the case be adjourned, as Mr Sheppard had only received the summons yesterday. Sergeant Felton said he had no objection to the case being adjourned till to-morrow week, and the application of Mr Wildiqg was therefore acceded to. False Pretences. —Frederick Pavitt, was charged with having obtained a quantity of wheat on false pretences. This was a case adjourned from last week. —Mr Purnell, on behalf of the defendant, objected to the police conducting this case, on the grounds that it was an information laid by a private individual. He cited authorities to support his contention. The Bench said that ’ a note of the. objection! 'would taken, but it would not be sustained in this instance. Edwin Thomas, the prosecutor, being sworn, said that he had received a cheque this morning, and that he wished under the circumstances to withdraw from the case. —Mr Purnell said that he wished it to be understood that the ; cheque referred to had not been paid to Mr Thomas by his client. Mr Pavitt had nothing to conceal, and he was quite willing* the case should be gone on with, as it would have been last week if the police had not asked for an adjournment.: He might say that the time when the information was laid Thomas held a bill from Isaac Osborne covering the whole, of 4he defendant’s debt. The bill was not due till last Friday, and Thomas did not present it till yesterday, and then it was paid, not by Mr Pavitt, who had nothing to do with the matter, but by Osborne.—The case was withdrawn.

CIVIL OASES. Mcßae v. Pool, claim L3O, for damage caused by defendant’s negligent driving.— Mr Branson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Purnell for defendant.—Mr Branson said he would call witnesses to prove that defendant Eras drunk, and he recklessly ran into a mare belonging to plaintiff causing such injuries that she had to be killed.—William Sutherland, groom, deposed that he was riding a mare and leading a horse on the Tinwald road at the time of the accident, and defendant came along the road in a trap from the opposite direction, and ran the shaft into the mare, injuring her so much that she had to bo destroyed. The defendant had not control over the reins or the. accident would not have happened. He valued the mare at from Ll 5 to L2O. —Mr Purhell crossexamined the witness at some length concerning the relative position of the heroes and the vehicles. Witness admitted that ho had had several liquors, but he was sober at the time of the collision. Did not know what Mr Mcßae had paid for the mare.— —Cashmere, laborer, said that he saw the accident happep.;- The defendant was driving the trap at the rate of 16 miles an hour. There was a boy in the trap with.the defendant, and the former seemed to be nearly tumbling off. Sutherland was going quietly along the road when tie accident happened. Defendant did not stop to see what damage was done, as requested by Sutherland. — Cross-examined : One ;of i 'Sutherland’s horses was in the gutter and the other alongside. The sheep were all round Pool’s trap —George F. Scott, cab-driver, said that he saw defendant twice on the day of the accident. The first time he saw him waS in a publichouse, and on the second occasion he (defendant) was driving recklessly along the road. He considered defendant was drdnk;-—Grotis-examb'ed : Held a man to be drunk who needed the support of a table.—John Carter, of remembered the 16th April. Saw defendant driving on' that day with two or three boys. Considered he was driving/at a furioha irate, and recklessly. The led horse was on the footpath, and the other was in the gutter. —James Mcßae, stablekeeper, deposed that the rule was that the man leading a horse must keep on the off side. Paid L 8 10s for the mare in a' bankrupt estate, but he would not have taken L 25 for her. —This concluded the plaintiff’s case.— Mr 1 Purnell called for: the defence:— Henry Poole, who deposed he remembered being at Tinwald on the 16th April. Ho was driving along the road on that day at the ordinary trotting pace, about five miles an hour, and when he came up to a mob of sheep on the road, he saw Sutherland pull his horse across. If Sutherland had kept on the way he was going, the accident would not have occurred. Had been offered the mare by Mr Boyle for L6.—Cross-examined : Did not pull up on approaching the sheep, as he did not think it necessary. Witness had had a few liquors during the day in Ashburton, but had full control over the horse. "What the witness Scott had stated concerning him (defendant) was not true.—Re-examined : There was a pathway through the mob of sheep, and there was no need for him to slacken his pace. Cairncross, contractor, said he was passing through Tinwald on the 16th April. Saw Sutherland riding a horse and leading another behind a mob of sheep. Sutherland was in the middle of the road at that time. Poole was coming along in a trap on the proper aide of the road, according to witness’s opinion. Saw the collision and did not consider there was any necessity for Sutherland taking his horses across the road. Could not say whether Sutherland was drunk or sober at the time. —ln answer to Mr Branson witness said that Poole was walking his horse steadily past the sheep just before the accident.— John Cairncross gave evidence to the effect that Sutherland was not sober when witness saw him prior to the accident. Did not see the accident occur. Did not know the rule of the road in connection with a led horse. —H. V. Chichester said that Poole drove witness from Ashburton to Tinwald on the 16th April. Poole was sober at that time.—Mr Purnell addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, arguing that if ordinary care had been used to prevent the accident, the disaster would not have happened.—Mr Branson having replied, his Worship said that there seemed to be a certain amount of sontributory negligence on both sides, and as there seemed to be no need why the plaintiff should have attempted to leave the middle of the road, where the horses would have been safe, judgment would be for the defendant, each fparty to pay their owu costs

Kennedy v. Cameron—Claim, 18 17a 2d, for work done. Mr Parnell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for defendant. L 6 16s waa paid into Court. The subject in dispute was as to whether plaintiff was to be paid by the week or by the hour. After evidence had been taken, the Bench gave judgment for ainonnt paid inte Court without costs.