MAGISTERIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1861, 7 June 1888, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

ASHBURTON— THURSDAY.

(Before Captain Wray, R.M.) DISCHARGING A GUN. Thomas Magee was charged with having discharged a gun on a public road— to frit, Shearer's road. — John Clarke said he occupied the farm fojmerly oooupled by Magee, who now lived on the aide of the roid. About five o'clock m the afternoon wltnesi was attending to his horses when Magee fired a shot from his gun. He was then about seventy yards off and the shot rattled on the tin of the stable.— By Mr Magee : Witness was not frightened of being shot. He laid the information because he waß justified m doing bo.— By the Banoh ; There was 111-feeling between Magee and witness as the former did not like witnesi being m oooupation of the farm. Magee had slnoe fired at the plaoe ' W. Cairns, had heard guns discharged. —The defendant, Thomas Magee said that he discharged the gun m the evening limply because he did not like to keep it oharged over night. He had no 111 will against Clarke. He admitted being on the road when he fired the gun, but he iris ignorant of such being an offence. — In cross-examination Magee said that h9 had not threatened Clarke, nor had he caused him any trouble. — The Magistrate warned the defendant to be cautious m discharging his gun In future, He would only inflict a penalty of ss. He did not know if there was any ill-feeling between the parties : he hoped there was not and that he should not hear anything more than that. AN OBSTRUCTION. Thomas Magee was oharged with causing an obstruction on a publlo highway. It. appeared tbe defendant lived m a house on skids which blocked a public road: — The police did not wish to press hardly on defendant, who was not m the best of circumstances,, and aeked that the ciaa be adjourned for a month to allow time lor the house to be shifted. — Case acjoarned for a month, XHI SALTATION ABMY. Mr J. Hacvey, captain of the Salvation Army was charged with having caused an obstr notion m a public Btreet. — Sergeant Felton said that on Saturday night the Army band came out. They stopped In Burnett street about half an hour playing, and haranguing the people. Tbe street was a publio one and a great obstruction was caused. Many complaints had been made, and tbe Army had been cautioned several times. He read a letter from the Borough Conncll requesting the police to take steps to abate the nuisance. — By defendant ; witness was there on the night In question but did not request defendant to move on. Did not do so because the army bad been warned on numberless occasions. Did not now if defendant had personally been warned. A serious obstruction wasoaußed; a person riding or driving oould not get past ;— Constable Smart gave evidence — Constable Fitzgerald gave evidence as to the obetruoiioh caused. Had noticed the ebstrnotlon on previous occasions but did not think he had spoken to the army. By detendeat : Did not see anyone who oould not get past — The defendant said that on the night m pucatlon the army were on their right side of the road and precuationa were taken so that if any horses were frightened, the pitying or singing oould be ■topped. There was plenty of room on tha road for two or three vehicles to pats abreatt and although there were a good many people on the footpath it was not by any means obstructed— The Magistrate said that he wished the defendant to understand that he onght not to remain m one portion of the street. If it were necessary for the army to go abroad thoy ■honld move on and not stop m one plaoe thus obstructing the passage of people He did not propose to Inflict any penalty In this case, but he. would caution the defendant. Defendant did not appear to have acted wilfully or negligently so the Information would be dismissed. civil oases Tasker v Talt, jadgment summons. Mr Outhbertson for judgment creditor. Order made for amount to be paid m monthly instalments of £1, m default 14 days' imprisonment, A. Jackson v J. Studholme, claim £2 10a. Mr Crisp for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for defendant. This case was brought under Section 22 of the Fencing Act, The plaintiff said that a road divided his property from that of the defendant. On his side of the road witness bad erected a fence, but defendant had no fenoe on his property. Witness alleged that defendant derived benefit from the fence, and sought to make him liable for portion of the cost of maintenance nnder section 22 of the Act, — Mr Pornell asked for a nonsuit, inasmuch as it was not shown that the defendant had done anything to avail himself of the fenoe, snob, as fencing across the road, and thus using plaintiff's boundary as one of the sldea of paddock. —Tbe Magistrate nonsuited tbe plaintiff. B. Druey vJ. Smlthers claim £10. Mr Cuthbertson for plaint ff, Mr Crisp for defendant. Eyldenoe haying been taken at some length. Judgment was given for defendant. [Left Sitting.]