RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 977, 23 June 1883, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before «T. Beswick, Esq., R.M., 0. Pj. Oox, Esq., and T. Bullock, Esq., J. P. ’s. )| In the Branson case Mr Crisp called for the defence G. D. Branson, who said that he had been consulted by the accused in regard to the account between the latter and Mcßae. Accused said ho had received moneys on account of Mcßae, and witness advised him that he has justified In keeping the amount. Accused gavq witness to understand that he wr-s autho-| rised to collect accounts for Mcßae —* The second information was then gone on with.—Donald Forbes gave evidence that he paid Branson L 5 on the 22nd of May,and received an acknowledging;. Rej membered being present at an interview between accused, Pullar, Mcßae, and others. Mcßae asked Branson if he was authorised to collect accounts for him,j and he answered “No.”—Cross-examined:; Was perfectly sober at the time. —J. W.s Mcßae gave evidence similar to that given! in the civil case last week. —Wm. Towns-; hend deposed to being present at the in-| terview referred to by the witness Forbes. Branson said that he was not authorised to collect Mcßae’s accounts. Robert Pullar gave similar evidence. — J. W. Mcßae, re-called, said that he knew that! accused had received the money from; Forbes at the time the second summons was taken out.— Mr Crisp then ad-* dressed the Court for the defence, and in - answer to a question from the Bench said that ho would prefer that the case be dealt with summarily.—The Magistrates then retired, and after an interval of fifteen minutes they returned. —Mr Beswick said that the Bench had given great consideration to the ease, and they could come to no other conclusion thgn that the prisoner was guilty on both counts. After reviewing the evidence his Worship laid that the prisoner would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, one month on the first charge, and The Court then adjourned. SOUTH RAK4JA —Yesterday. (Before R. Beetham, Esq. j R.M., and D. G. Holmes, Esq.) man named Thomas McGraith while in a state of intoxication.. The charge was not admitted. —Thomas McGraith, sworn, saidne lived at Mc-Wason’s, and was a farm laborer. Was at the Rakaia Hotel last month, and had three drinks. They did not make him drunk. That was all the orink he hadCipt das™ Did not re ’ member going nrnne:'-'Witness hijd a team of three horses, and found him elf at Barrhill. Believed he fell out of the dray going home, but did ..not remember it.— Cro-s-examined by Mr Loughrey; It was abont two o’clock in the day when he was at Howell’s Hotel. Was told that the horses eldWifi up his team, and believed he was sober when he had the last drink. Gilbert Gordon, McGraith intoxicated on May 18th in • Howell’s hotel. Saw him served with two drinks by the off the bar; he was worse after he had them. He was not fit to take charge of his horses, and witness helped him into Abe dray. The team found McGraith on the road. Took him to Barrhill. Saw him from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., whe%,hgjeftsj»kaia. -Crossexamined by Mr Lough rey : Only saw McGraith at 4 o’clock on that day. ing. McGraith was more sensible when witness picked him up than when he left iUhaia.T;{Had afßp)Ban tol help ffiitihim on tne loadf of chaff witness had with him. James King, sworn, said he remembered McGraith having .drink about 2 o’clock. He wksi idWeP' and had a pint of beer. He had another pint in about half-an-bour. He then left the hotel but returned and stayed some time. He had several more-drinks. Did know how many drinks were served by the barman after he was drunk. Left the hotel at 6 o’clock. He was able to get into his dray himself, unable to control his hori&i—Mr Xoughiey submitted there was no case, as there was no evidence to prove that Mr Howell was an iaiefefatfe Mrs Blackmore swore she saw McGraith about 4 o’clock and he was sober. She did not see him afterwards. Heard Me Howell refuse ‘drink;—W. Blackmore, examined, said McGraith was quite sober till 4 o’clock, when witness last saw him. Mr Howell refused witness drink on that day. Leonard said he assisted to help McGraith of his dray at Barrhill about 9 o’clock, and he was perfectly sober, onlybadtyl 1 ''state (Hlfi at J Mr Howell had been fined Lo for allowing riotous conduct in his house.—The Bench looked eupon this aa<a seripus case against Howell, althouififl&fWVas nia servant served the drink. Without casting any reflection on the ability of the constable, it was his opinion that.in, those cases the authorities of police should put the conducting of the prosecution in more fitting bands.—A number of gentlemen were ter of Mr Howell and his house.—Defendant was liable to a penalty of LSO, but he would be fined L2O, the license to be endorsed and witnesses to bo allowed expenses. CIVIL CASES. Devoeux, trustees, v. N. Welsh, value of a dog cart, L 25. Mr Purnell appeared for the defendanhQphm«lake he lent the tAfpwrfn tl to understanding that I it would be returned when required. Sent on two occasions, but could not get that was lent, and it had been exchanged for he had not received the trap in exchange, but Lake had got his horse from him which was returned. The trap was worth Ll 5, and witness was to give his horse and 1.6 for it-—Mrs Lake, Henry Rutter and Charles Pluck also gave evidence for the plaintiff. —N. Welsh, sworn, said he had borrowed a trap from Lake, and at that time Lake was about LlO in his debt. -A ilrifo.s was to keep the tr-p till another LlO which he borrowed was repaid.—Mr Lake was again put in the box, and said that his sons had done work lo the value of LU foe Lake, and another L 4 was lent by L ike to his sons—Edward Lake, one of t ie sons, swore that he bad 1.10 from Welsh for his father, but he had worked for it. —Welsh here entered the box again, and said be had given Charles Lake a cheque for LlO and kept the trap as security. Borrowed the cheque from Hardy, the Lake was in difficulties and asked witness to lend him money and take it out in work from the boys. The trap ■ was worth £4, and he sent it to Mr Harrison, the auctioneer in Ashburton, to sell, and be ran it up to L 3 ss, and knocked it down.—W. M'llraith gave evidence.—Mr . Purnell said that it was clearly shown that Lake had nothing to do with the trap as an exchange had been made with Duncan for a horse. —Judgment for plaintiff for 110. O, Lake v. J. C. Bell. Claim for L2 6s.—Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Davies and Gov. W. G. Bluett, claim for LlO, commission on sale of lease of a I reserve. Mr Purnell appeared f >r the plaintiff—After evidence had been taken 'Judgment was given -for the amount wiin-oosts. M»fce«g v. O. Robinson and E. Clark.— v ' Mr Purnell for plaintiff, and Mr Lough- ' jroy £<Jr ’defendants.—Claim for L 5, damages for enticing a dog away and V ipoan!ng it.—Arthur Makeig, sworn, said

;bei;hftdLjfc»r*^Mable J dog*».a=- greyhound . puppy. Oh the Queen's birthday saw aefendant on the platform and at the store. Witness'refused to go coursing as he would not run the young dog, and his other was locked up. VVas keeping the pup for a coursing match. Witness left them, and the dog went with him. Missed it about half an hour afterwards. Next saw it on the following morning very stiff and scarcely able to walk. It was in this state for two or three days. It would teach the dog to run cunning if it went with a lurcher. Had made arrangements to send the dog to a man to train. Saw Mr Clark after he came homeland told him he should bring an action against him for taking his dog. He replied that the dog followed him, and he did not take it. His horse was restive, and it took all his lime to manage it. Crossexamined : Nefyeh/told v Sbellpok 'to. run his dog, but asked him to take it away from anyone who had it, and tie it up. It was a fact that he had bet a LI with Mr Rqbipjjon, that he wohld proceed with the case. Asked him to withdraw the bet before witness took out the summons.-—Willialm Moss, sworn, said, he knew Mr Makeig’s fawn colored bitch. Saw defendants with the bitch and other dogs coursing over the river. When he first saw the bitch she was with defendants, abbutXwo miles, over the bridge.—Cross-examined : All the dogs, about six or seven in number, were running together. The dog had followed witness about 300 yards from Makeig’s house to the stable. Defendants paid no particular attention to Mr Makeig’s dog.— Edward Lake, sworn, gave similar evidence. All the dogs were treated the same —Thomas Mutter gave evidence to the effect that when he saw Makeig’s dog after the Queen’s birthday it was very f< ptsore. Knew something about dogsj intt it would harm a dog to run with a lurcher, for if he, ran cunning it would be disqualified in B' match. Had seen Makeig’s dog run with another greyhound in one course. Did not see her running with a bull dog. Fred Searle also gave evidence. —W. Moss, re-called, said a lurcher was running with the others, also a sheep dog. —G. Robinson, sworn., said he never asked Makeig to lend his dog. First saw her on the bridge. Did not try to send her back, and never enticed her to follow him. Mr Makeig never told witness why he would not go over the river. Had twice {seen his-dog rannin g—once it broke away ifrom Mr Oxley’s buggy. Witness’s own dog is a bull and retriever, the other is a I three-quarter part greyhound. Several loftier witnesses were examined. — The (Bench said there was no proof showing jihat defendant had enticed the dog away. 'Judgment woulflbq given for deteirdants with fjf 1. ■ > k