RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1487, 13 March 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHBURTON—To-day.

(Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.

Riotous Conduct. Murdo McKenzie was charged with having been drunk and with having behaved in a riotous manner in a public street. He was further charged with having damaged a constable’s shako. —Constable Beddek described ihe condition and behavior of the accusedHe had been very violent, and his arrest had been effected with difficulty. The accused had also employed very offensive language.—A witness corroborated the evidence of the constable.—His Worship said that the accused had acted more like a maniac than a sane man. The accused was mulct in the following penalties :

20a and costa, with the alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment for drunkenness ; 60s and costs, with the alternative of one months’ imprisonment for offensive language ; and ordered to pay amount of damage to constable’s uniform 14s 6d, coat of witness Bs, and cab hire 2s, with the alternative of seven days’ imprisonment. CIVIL OASES. Ashburton Guardian Company v W. Dalgetty, claim L2 9a 6d.—Mr Purnell for the plaintiffs. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costa. Grant v Green, claim L 8 2s —Mr Branson for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. The defendant was ordered to pay 30s per month. Cheese and Butter Factory Company v T. Vddis, claim L 5 19s 6d—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costa.

A. Orr v R. Thompson, claim L 9 5s. — Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costa. Wood, Shand and Co. v G. Cox, claim L 65 8s Bd. —Mr Purnell for the plaintiffs. Defendant had confessed to judgment, and Mr Parnell applied for solicitors and witnesses costa in addition to the amount of the claim, The application was granted. Boyd v Betts, claim Ll2 —LB had been paid into Court, Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Branson for defendant. This was a claim for carting oats. As the defendant had not filed a set-off with particulars and practically had no defence judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.

Hicks v Morris, claim L 4 ss.—This was a case which had been adjourned for the purpose of taking the evidence of Thomas Hicks, senior, Woodville.— Judgment was now given for the amount claimed and co r ts.

Jones v Mcßae, claim LlO, the value of a horse alleged to have been improperly acquired by the defendant from the plaintiff —Mr Wilding for the plaintiff, Mr Branson for the defendant All witnesses wore ordered out of Court. C. Jones, a laborer, the plaintiff, said he recollected being in Ashburton on 7 th January. He went to the Somerset Hotel, having tied a mare he jhad been riding outside the house. He subsequently saw the defendant at the latter’s stables.— F. Hill, the proprietor of the hotel, had made overtures for the purchase of the

[, mare, and it had been arranged that the u defendant should try her in his hansom 1 cab. The mare was tried, and the defen- ’ dant offered another horse in exchange for her. Witness had been drunk for some y time, A trotting match was ultimately J? arranged. Witness recollected starting “ for the match; he believed the distance n was from Winslow to the bridge, but he was very drunk at the time, and had no • very clear idea as to what did occur. A - referee was appointed, who had exerted s himself to keep witness on his horse, a Witness did not recollect who the referee , was, but he thought it was a friend of the a defendant. The following morning witness % found himself lying at the side of i the road between Tinwald and the 3 bridge. Witness had since heard that the J match had been hors/? for hops§. He had > found defendant’s horse at Ti.nwahJ, and j had since been unablo tp discover the • whereabouts of his own horse. Defendant > had first said that it was at Kaikoura, and | then that it was at Rakala.—To Mr Branson : He could not fix the date of the 1 ! match. Hill had offered witness L 6 10s for the mare but he would not accept it, Witn.eas was hard up it the time, and ! would haye taken leas than her tfalue for ! the mare. He had ogareff her to Hill for L 7. He had seen the defendant the folio wing day ; wlcneiw was very drunk at the time • he no recollection of signing . any 6 receipt; the red?* peared to be signed by him. He ... taken possession of defendant’s horse and i had sold it. Witness did nqt know a man named Mabin. (Mabin was called into 1 Court, and witness said he thought he < (Mabin) was the man to whom he had sold tffe d'.fondant’s horse). —Tq Mr * Wilding: Witness was still drunk when t he sold defendant’s horse to IVJEabin. V|ftt- 1 ness had sold it because he was hard up, without money or friends.—J, Heseltine said that aany in January b e had Be P“ n -'laintiff and defendant together, jj the -i fcha defendant op [fche Witness had uk.. - chain* £ other side of the bridge, and.a further on had met the plaintiff. Witn> s« o, had spoken to plaintiff, and immed ate’y ra afterwards the defendant joined them, G

Both the parties appeared sober. Witness had had some conversation this morning with the defendant in respect to the case. Witness had told Mr Oaygill that the plaintiff had been very drunk. (The witness at this stage was submitted to a very severe examination by the Bench and Mr Wilding, and ultimately staled that he thought the plaintiff had been drunk) The defendant had said to witness, <( What is up with him ? On witness replying that the plaintiff wished to dismount, defendant addressing the latter said. “Oome on, you are not so - - drunk as all that.” The plaintiff was mounted on one of the defendant s horses.—To Mr Branson : The defendant helped plaintiff off his horse. Witness thought the assistance was given on account of the plaintiff being drunk. At the suggestion of the Bench the witness referred to an entry in his books which enabled him to say that it was about the 7th January he had seen the parties together.—The plaintiff, recalled, said that about the time of the transaction he had been drunk for weeks. Referring again to the receipt produced (dated 16th January) witness said the signature was like, but he would not admit that it was, his.—J. McUae, the defendant, said the plaintiff had offered the mare, subject of this action, to witness for sale. The plaintiff appeared at the time to have had a few drinks. Witness would not buy the mare, and plaintiff had subsequently ir'ed to sell her elsewhere. Still later the defendant, who was more annoying than drunk, came to the witness and proposed an exchange.pf horses. Witness had offered to give de fondant a horse for his mare and 50s, The defendant had offered to trot witness to determine which should pay the 50s. Witness had agreed to this proposition, provided referees were appointed. The defendant was perfectly sober, and had selected the referees. The match took place and witness won. The receipt produced, signed by plaintiff, was given to witness by plaintiff about seven days after the match. Plaintiff had not questioned the transaction until about two weeks ago. Witness then learnt that he (plaintiff) had been advised by his solicitor to seize the mare, and witness had communicated with the police.—To Mr Wilding . Witness still had the horse obtained from the plaintiff. Witness would not sell her. He might take L4O if he was hard up. He valued her at L 8 10a when he bought her. The plaintiff only had two drinks previous to the match, but after it he feigned drunkenness. The parties had exchanged horses The match was merely to determine which should pay the other 50s. After the match witness had left the plaintiff on the other side of the bridge.—J. Mabin, a shepherd, had lately purchased a horse from plaintiff. Plaintiff may have had a glass or two at the time of the transaction, but was not drunk. Witness had bought the horse for defendant.—To Mr Wilding : Witness received nothing from defendant for negotiating the purchase. Witness had given a cheque for LI and L 3 10s in cash for the horse. He usually paid his accounts by cheque, ahe transaction took place in the Somerset Hotel. The receipt produced was signed at the time.—To the Bench : The defendant may have understood that witness was purchasing the horse on his own account. He did not. Gilbert McOandish said that he had been present when the parties to the present action had agreed to exchange horses, and determine by a trotting match which should pay the other 60s. Witness was referree at the request of plaintiff The defendant won the match. Plaintiff was sober at the time the match was arranged. Immediately before the start plaintiff had two drinks at the Winslow Hotel, and during the race was slightly elevated. The plaintiff had, prior to the race, asked witness not to be very particular about the mare breaking. The plaintiff had made other improper overtures in reference to the match. Witness was sober at the time; he was not a friend of the defendant. —Counsel having addressed the Bench, His Worship said in regard to a contention raised by Mr Wilding, that ho did not regard the trotting match as a gambling transaction, but thit it had been arranged to determine the respective value of the horses. He did not think it had been shown that the plaintiff was in such a state of intoxication as to be unable to transact business. The case was a particularly “ nasty " one. He was compelled having carefully considered the evidence to nonsuit the plaintiff. No costs would be allowed,

111-treating a Horse —James Taylor was charged with having ill-treated a horse by neglecting to supply it with proper nourishment and shelter. Constable Beddek said that on the night of the 26th February he had noticed a horse tied to a post near the Somerset Hotel. Witness having been informed that the horse had been tied in the same position for nearly twelve hours, caused it to be removed to Mcßae’s stables. Witness had later on the same night discovered the accused in an outhouse at the back of the Commercial Hotel.—William Scott said he had seen the horse tied as described by the last witness from 11 am. on the day mentioned in the information until taken charge of by the police,—J. Mcßae corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses.—Mr Wilding objected to the information, contending that to comply with sub-section 1 section 7 of the Police Offences Act, and section 47 of the J ustices of the Peace Act, three separate charges should have been specified—one of failing to provide water, another for failing to provide food, and another for failing to provide shelter. —The objection was upheld, and the information dismissed.