RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1242, 1 May 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

A§HB ORTON. -To-dat. (Before H, 0. S. Baddeley, Esq , R.M.} Drunkenness and Obscene Language. —John Gilbert was charged with being drunk on tho Ashburton bridge on April 10th, while in charge of a horse and dray. Mr Branson appeared for the accused, and pleaded guilty to the charge.—A further charge for using obscene language was preferred by the police —Mr Branson contended that the second charge was dependent upon the first, and he thought it unnecessary to go into the evidence. Ths Bench, however, considered the second charge the much more serious one and would hear the evidence. Mr Branson subsequently elected to plead guilty to the second charge.—Mrs Mulaney gave evidence to the language made use of by Gilbert. —M. Mullaney, husband of the previous witness and one of the bridgekeipers, corroborated his wife’s tesiimony —The Bench commented upon tho gravity of the offence, and inflicted a fine of I 5 and costs, or in default twenty-one days’ imprisonment. The fine was immediately paid. Unregistered Dogs.— The following persons were each fined 10s and costs for having unregistered dogs in their possession, viz :—'leo. Smyth, E. 0. Prebble, J. Purchase, Robert Hill, R. Lancaster. The charge against D Brown was dismissed. Cattle at Large.— The following persons were fined for allowing cattle to stray at large, vizT. Bullock, ss; John Hickey, Is and costs, 14s ; Daniel Breene, Is and costs, 14s,

CIVIL C VSBS. Holmes v. Judd.—This was a claim foi the services of the son of the plaintif riding the horse Our John in the Pos Stakes at the Autumn Race Meeting. Th< defendant admitted the claim (L 5), anc asked for time to make the payment.—Mi Crisp appeared for the plaintiff, and said that his client has always been prepared to settle the matter amicably out of court for apy treasonable amoi|nt ; but the mattei having gone so far ne ask fur a judgment for the full amount claimed and costa. The Bench gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs, payment to be made within one week. Mulford v. Graham—This was a claim arising out of a contract which the litigants had executed fqr Sjfr E. If. Hobson, of Lowoliljf. Mr Crisp appeared for the defendant!—R. Mulford, the plaintiff, said that the defendant had received Lfi 3s from Mr Dobson for work performed by himself an 1 the defendant. He was entitled to half this amount, but at present had only received L2, and now claimed the balance L'2 Is. The defenI dant had pr mised to pay him when he had completed some harvest work for Mr Dawson, but had failed to do so,—E. Graham, the defendant, said that he had paid Mulford L 3 but had taken no receipt. He had received LT 7s for division amongst three men, and LI Is for division amongst five, so that the plaintiff had actually been overpaid— John Timms, a partner in the work, had received LI in part payment of his share of the L 7 7s, and Graham had promised to pay the balance.—VV. Mager sfcid that Mulford had several times admitted to him that he had received L 3 from the defendant. —The plaintiff was re-called by Mr Crisp, and produced a statement of the account furnished by Mr Dobson, from which it apoeared that Mulford and Graham had alone been engaged upon this particular contract. 'he Bench gave judgment for LI 17a and costs.