MAGISTERIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1547, 2 May 1887, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL

ASHB URTON— MONDAY. (Beforg Mv H. 0. S. Bnddoley 11. M.) ' DRUNKENNESS. ( A Bret rffetider, for having been drunk ! at the Railway £tution, wag Gv.O'.l 10a and costs with tho alternative of 48 houra imprisonment, Another man, who made hia first, appearance, wrb charged vtith having be-m drunk whUo m charge of. a horse, and vran fined 203 and oats, m defau't 3 days imprisonment. COW TETHERED ON ROAD. George Adams, £>r whom MrCa'.hbortson appeared, was charged w.'th having tethered a cow bo Ihut it tveapasaed on the adjoining roadway. The cff:uca wai admitted aud a fine of 10s arid coblb In* flloted. TRACTION ENGINES. Georga Mayuard was charged with having taken a traction engine across the Ashburton Traffic Bridge without having first obtained a permit from the proper officer.: — The defendant, who did not appear, was represented by Alt Crisp. — Mr Crisp addressed the Bench, maintaining that the ofienoe was of a trivial description . The defendant was a very respectable man. He went to the County Council office m order to got a permit, but finding the office closed he actually west to the County Engineer's residence to get one bat failed to find tlat gentleman at home. The engine weighed only cix tons, the usual weight being doable that, and the time it took to cross was twenty-five minuteß. The Bench would see by this that no injury was likely to be done to the bridge. The by-laws m relation to the bridge also were not generally known. — Sergt. Felt'on . pointed out that the by-laws were placed m a conspicuous position on a board at each end of the bridge. The defendant crossed about half-past nine m the morning, and it was distinctly set forth that traction engines could only cross between the hours of 10 at night and 7 m the morning. It wasnot bo much on account of the damage to tne bridge that the case was brought, but because of the possible danger to persons crossing the bridge. — Mr Crisp said the defendant had sent a man on before the engine to give warning of its approach. — Being the first case of the sort, the police, only pressed for a light penalty. — A fine of iOs and costs was inflicted. N. Eden, similarly charged, pleaded guilty and was mulcted m a like penalty. Informations laid against the defendants for neglecting to draw the fires from the engines' furnaces, and to exhaust the steam from tho boilers were withdrawn. ABSENT FROM HORSES. Win. Connell, for having been absent from his horses and dray so as not to retain control over the same, was fined £1 and costs. HORSE AT lARGE. , John Stevens, for having allowed a horse to wander nt large, was fined 7s 6d and costs. • A DOG CASE, Andrew Young was charged with being the owner of a dog which attacked the child of one Donald McKenzie on April 8, and also with having permitted a dog known to be dangerous to go at large. — Donald McKenzie said that tho defendant's dog flew at his little boy on the day before Good Friday and tore his clothes, though it did Bdt mark him. The little boy was walking m tho middle of the road, and did nothing to provoke the dog. The dog had rushed out on previous occasions, twice at witness. — By Jlr Cuthbertsoa : Witness was n^t a friend nor an enemy of the defendant. Witness had complained to Young about the dop. — The police asked permission to amend tho information from tho Bth to the 7tb, the hitter date being tliat ot me xu urtsaay Deioro cnwd -Friday. — Mr Outhbertson objected, and the Bench refused the application. — The police stated that they would bring a fresh information against Young. — The charge of keeping a dangerous dog was then proceeded with, all the evidence relating to the alleged attack on complainant, McKenzie's, child being eliminated. — The complainant gave evidence of three attacks on himself by the dog. Witness did not think his life waß m danger. — Phillip Crum passed •Young's place occasionally. The defendant's dog about three weeks ago snapped at witness's leg. — By Mr Cuthbei.son: Witness did not complain to Young, Ho did not think it worth while, De did not think that the dog v,ss a ferocious one. — E. Peryman said that the dog had on two or three occasions rushed at him but had never bitten him. He did not regard the dog as particularly dangerous and he had no fear of passing the place. — By Mr Cathbertsoli: KemeiEbered throwing stoneß on one occasion. He threw them to defend himself. — This was the case m anpport of the information. — For the defence, Andrew Young stated that the dog was a very quiet one. It waß always kept on the chain at night. With regard to Perjmr.n's evidence, Peryman had thrown stones at the dog whon on the chain. He believed the information had been brought becacae of spite on McKenzie's part, MoKerzie having been dismissed from bis employ. He dierafceef McKenzie because he missed things from the Bhop, and he had not raieaed anything since McKenzie's discharge, Be had also refused credit to McKeneie. — the witness was crofs-ex-aminad by the police, but he denied that the dop: had ever nißhed out at anybody. On the occasion when Peryman threw Btonea witneas would swear that the dog waß chained,— David Amos, who lived within 50 yards of Young's place, gave evidence that the dog was cf a very quiet disposition. — John Ouitia, who lived next to the de'endant, sad that the dog was perfectly harmless. For some time past gtone3 had been thrown at the dog when on the chain, and that caused it to bark at people passing by.— O. Ward stated that the dog was quiet and harmless. — The Magistrate said he did not think the charge had been substantiated, but at the same time It would bb as well if the defendant would look carefjiHy. after the dog,-— The police aßked if the Court would go on with ihe charge, under a fresh information, of the dog attacking McKenzio'B child, but br Mr Cathbertson objected the case was not then taken. The Court then rose.