MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1420, 30 November 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

METRYEN—MONDAY.

[Befoie Mr E. Chapman, J.P., and Mr D. Cameron, J.P-]

ALLEGED SUPPLYING OF LIQUOR TO A

DRUNKEN PERSON. The adj nrned case against R, Patton, licensee of the Methven Hotel, for supplying liquor to a man whilst in afstate of m'oxica'ion, was resumed.— Felton p ov'cu'ed, and Mr J, Holmes appeared hr Mr Patton. Judging from the large attendance of the public, considerable local interest was taken in the cate. Six witnesses were called in support of the case, and five for the defence, all of whom were examined and cross-examined at co isiderab e length. The bulk of the evidence given was tbe personal opinion of the witnesses as to the difference between a “ perfectly sober" and a 1 drunk ” man, and the co. filet of testl mony waa often as amusing to the public as it waa perplexing to the Justices.— After a verv lengthened hearing, tbe Bench dismissed the case, as it was the first of the kird that had been before the Court, and the evidence was very conflicting. They stated that any future cases of the kind that were proved would be severely punisher!. CIVIL CASE H. L Wha'ley v William Bowse.— Claim £8 8s 6d for 10 weeks’ wages aa barman, «*tc.—Mr Holme* for pl-fintiff— Defeodan- tiled a set- ff for £3B, which he reduced to £l9 10s to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court, but the Bench' ruled that he could not reduce the Btt- ff, which was struck out, and judgment given for £3 8s 61 and coats, and solicitor’s fee.

ASHBURTON—TUESDAY. (Before Mr H. S. 0 Baddeley, R.M.) ALIVO ED FORGERY AND UTTERING William Ball Z-juch was charged no information—(lj With having forged s promissory note ; (2) with hav'ng uttered the same knowing it to have been forged —At the request of the accused’* counsel tie police applied for a remand f r a week, which was granted, bail being allowed QAM'NG AND LOTTERIES ACT. George Tait, for whom Mr Crisp appeared, was charged under section 18 of t >e Gaming and Lot eriea Act with baring disposed of tickets which gave certain persona an interest in a scheme whereby piizes, to wit, agricultural implemen a were to be gained. The defendant pleaded guilty.—T he p dice-had no desire to press the charge as the defendant bore an excellent character and had evident'y acted through Inadvertence—Mr Crisp spoEe at some length in his client’s favor. He said the defendant had on two occasions communicated with Mr Walker, and bad understood the matter was all right, and the “ Art Union” could be held. The matter slipped Mr talker's memorj for the time being, and it was some time afterwards when he wrote to the Colonial Secretary asking permission for Tait to hold the “ Art Union.” He received a reply from Wellington that permission to hold the “ Art Union” could not be granted as agricultural implements did not come within the meaning of the 18th section of the Act. Mr Walker communicated this reply to Tait, who abstained from taking any further step* in the muter. —The Magistrate said it was necessary that the provisions of the Act should be strictly obeyed. It was evident the defendant knew something about the Act, for he had applied to a member of Parliament in reference to the matter. Tait had stated on ihe tickets that the Act Union was by permission of the Hon. the Oolmlal Secretary, whereas to such permission had bean obtained, and persona purchasing tickets were liable to a heavy penalty. The offence in this instance was a comparatively small one, as the police had, by taking timely action, prevented the participators from becoming seriously involved. The defendant bora a good character, and in this case a heavy penalty would not bo imposed. Fined £6 ar d cost I. ILLEGAL IMFOUNDING. William Wilkie was charged with having illegally impounded one oow, the property of John Hlatr.—Mr Oaygill appeared in support of the Information and Mr Crisp for the defendant.—Mrs Blair aaid that oa tbt analog

—. > November 18ch as she was going to bring her cow home from a section on which It had been tethered with the owner’s permission, the defendant took the cow out of her charge and drove it to the pound. Witness was not grazing the cow on the road, nor driving it on the footpath.— Vlrs Orosbie, H. Daily, and W. B. Compton gave evidence.—Mr Crisp submitted that the information was bad, as Vfrs Blair hid laid the information when the cow be'ooged to her hnsband, who was away working, and from whom aha had received no authority to take legal prcce ding<. -Mr O tyg'll replied, bat the Magistrate upheld Mr Crisp’s objection, snd tbe information was dismissed. William Wilkie was further charged on the Informal ion of the police with cruelly over-driving a cow. The animal waa that which was ooroerned in the previous c -se.—Mr Crisp appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.—Mrs MA deposed to the defendant taking the cow oat of her possession, and driving it away at a rapid rate. When witness released the cow from tbe pound some time later, tbe animal bore evidence of having been greatly distressed through having been over-driven. The cow had previously given slightly over k bucketful of mdk, but since the over-driving the quantity haa fallen off considerably.— S. Dabey gave evidence similar to that given hv him In tbe previous case.— Wm. Bi ikerataff saw the defendant driving a no* at a furious rate on the evening of November 18 Constable Beddek aiw a cow which had been brought to the police s atlon on the night of November 18 by Mrs Blair. The animal appeared to be greatly distressed ; it was perspiring profusely and panting very much.— Mr Crisp addressed the Bench on behalf of tbe defendant, and called evidence to -how that when the cow went quietly t was allowed to do so, and that it was .nly who-* it endeavored to break away ‘hat the defendant go Hoped after it.— Wm. Wilkie ea‘d that he had been eng ged by the pound keeper to I ok after 'he pound. On November 18 witness impounded Mrs Blair’s cow. The hoise witness was riding was an old draught, f wenly years old, and one which eonld not travel at a vary rap'd rate. Witness drove the cow as quietly aa be could, but «s it repeatedly broke away it was necessary for him to “ head” It. Toe cow was not distressed in any way when witness bft It at the pound. When Mrs Blair o me to release the cowtshe {saw that it was perspir m. Witn es pointed onttbat ad othe cows in tbe pound wen wet. ‘ There was a heavy dew-tbai'niglit.if— The witnes< was cross-examined by Sergeant Fel»< nat seme length. —W. J. Crooks and F. Parkin gave evidence,— T he Magistrate thought it Was evident tbe c w had been driven in an improper m nn»r, and if the person in charge had b en a man, in-tead of a boy, a heavy penult? would have been ioflieved. Fined £L and costs. ALLEGED I DECENT ASSAULT. R'cfc&rd Bea'e was Charred with having indecently assaulted a girl, sixteen yean of *ge, at Mount Somers, on Angnat 30. The case wss heard with closed doors.— The deposit ons of four witnesses were -aken, and the accused, having made a brief statement, was committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court, to be held at Christchurch. PROPERTY TAX. The Ashburton Gas, Coal, and. Coke Compsny was charged on tbs information of John Sperrey, the Property Tax Comrt laaioner, with having failed to furnish a statement of its property within the prescribed time. —Mr O Ward said it was true that the statement had not been furnished, but the omission happened in consequence of the iilness of Lie father. Tbe Commissioner of Property Tax bad been communicated with on the subject, and was willing that the information should be withdrawn, provided the costa were paid by the Gas Company Mr Ward said this course had been agreed to,—The information was accordingly withdrawn. The Court then rose