MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1908, 2 August 1888, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBUIITON— THURSDAY.

(Boforo Mr 0. A. Wray, RM.)

AT LAECJB,

Edmand Williams was charged with having permitted a cow to bo at large on the Watertoa road. — Mr Oriap appeared for the defendant who pleaded not guilty, A fine of 10a and coats was Inflict d. ILTiKQAL RESCEJE. Mary Williams waa charged on the information of Alfred Weaton, with having at Waterton illegally rescued a horee seized for the purpose of being impounded, — Mr Cathbertaon appeared for the informant and Mr Crisp for the defendant. —A. Weston B<»ld that he found defendant's horse m his paddook, and some time after he took it out for the purpose of impounding it. When witness was driving it to the pound Mrs Williams and her boy oaught ft aod took it Into their place. — T. Weaton, hon of the last witnesa gave evidence. — Defendant's case waa that although complainant had told the boy he was going to impound the horae he did not tell Mra Williams that he was going to do bo, and when she took oharge of the horse he raised no objection; A fine of 40s and costs was infl oted. T7KBEOISTRBED DOGS. Joseph Tait, J. Maben and T. G. Marriott, were fined for being the owners of unregistered doga. CIVIL OASES. Ooldatreara Road Board v W. Jackson, claim 2s. In this case which had been heard at hot Court day, the Magistrate now give judgment. Although the particulars ware Bomewhat loosely pat before the Court, the Act had been substantially complied wi h. He would therefore overrule the non-suit points raised and give jadgment for plaintiff, R. Alcorn v J. Vlckery, olalm £4 13s 6d. .Judgment for plaintiff by default. A. RDgg v A. J. Reid, claim £5 3s. Judgment for plaintiff by default. fl. Zmder v W. Redmond, olaim£2o. Judgment for plaint ffi by default. J. Orr and Oo v J. Skllllng, claim 13s. Judgment for plaint. ff by default.

T. Revell v Reid, claim £2 4s. Mr Oathbertson for plaintiff, Mr Wilding fcr defendant. The plaintiff, who Is a butoher, Beid that at the tale he bought a pen of 44 sheep described as mixed ewea and wetheis. He had ascertained that the pen were not what was gene rally understood by the term. There were only two wethers Instead of an equal proportion, The ewea were forward m lamb and uselees for butohering purpoßes The cheep vere In the pens reserved for fat sheep. Soon after the Bale saw Reid and told him he would olaim for damages. Believe the Bheep were described as young oneß. When he examined them afterwards ho found several broken mouths, He paid 83 for them, but if he h«d known what they weto he would not have bought them at all, rb they were practically useless for butohering purposes — By Mr Wilding ; Did not examine the sheep before the Bale. Bocght them on the auctioneer's guarantee— David Thomas, auctioneer, sold Bheep on behalf of Reid. Revell bought the pen. They were described as * mixed wethers and owes, suitable for butohering purposes. A butcher who bought for wethers ewes heavy m lamb m'ghc make a loss. There was a fair proportion of wethors m the four pens of Reid's, but it seemed that an undue proportion of ewes had found their way Into the pen bought by Revell — By Mr Wilding : Ravell had the option of taking tbo fcuc pens at the price he bought the one. Rovell could nowgetlson his bargain if the ewes were all In lamb. — Norriah, aald tho sheep wera not fit for butchers' purposes ; they were nearly ail ewes m Umb. — Mr Wildiug submitted there was no case. Defendant was not responsible for the manner m which the sheep were put Into the pens. Batidea he did not authorise any guarantee to be made, and If there was any cause of action It lay against the auctioneer.— The Magistrate said that plaintiff had also had the option of taking the whole four pena if he had liked.— Plaintiff wos nonsuited, Rillway Department v I. R. 0 0. Graham, olaim 5j si.— Mr Joynt for plalntif .— This case was of an inttrestlog natnre, na it affected the use to which the roturn tloketo loaned to market towns oa Btle days could be put, It appeared the defendant m Maroh laet took oat a market tioket'to Washdyke, designing to go on to Timaru, At Temuka he took a single Beoond-clssa ticket to Timaru and on the return journey he took a single first-class ticket, from Timarn to Washdyke, returnIng to ABhbnrton on his market ticket. The Hallway Department contended that a market ticket could only be used for the journey to the place for which It was lasued, and they sued for the amount of the ordinary fare to and from Timaru, viz, £1, giving defendant credit for the fares he had paid, amounting to \ 14b 7d, thus leaving tho balance of 5j Bd , sued for. It was alleged for the plaintiff • that the guard of the train dray defendant's attention to the fact that he could ; not do aa he contemplated. — Mr Joynt O P*U?4 $9 We M o»Ue4 Me G&mMo,

the Traffic Manager of the Canterbury Railways, who said that ordinarily retnro t : ckets were loaned to the general public on Saturdays. The ieauo of return ticket* to the public on the market days wa? a special arrangement. The case of M - Graham's was rep >rted by the guard and witnoea communicated with Mr Graham claiming the difference In the fareß. Mr Qrfthnm n plied fiat ho did not Bee how the Department could dictate how fa? he Bhould travel on any particular day, and he resisted the d< mand a3 beiogen extortion. -The defendant In oroBE- ximnlng the w ; .tne3B polct-rl out that he had been eharg-d first class fares, whoreai a portion of the wiyhe travelled second cla3s. The wtnoss m croac-oxatninatlon eald ths»t It would ba impossible to obtain cirtiftaates from people, who had buslneas at mark* fes There might be a large number of peop'e, Justloaa of the Peace and wnmm who travelled from Anhburton to Ohriatchurch on market dayp, Wflnass said tbat It would be Imp-Biible to fiad out wbeiher or not they had business at the market, i The dopatttnent did not dispute tholr right to travel to the markpt town, bat It objected to their right to stop short of or go beyond tho town. — By the Court : Tha general public travelling to a market town wore not supposed to have the advantage of these tlcketß, thouah no donbt tbe privilege was greatly abused, bacauae the depart mont had no oheck on it. If a man went to a market town bona fide there wonld be no orjsotlon to hla going on elsewhere, bub the department objected to anyone uslug a market ticket not to go to Washdyke bat as a means of going to Timarn — Fowke, guard on the express train, remembered Mr Graham

travelling on a market day to Waahdyke. Id the first plaoe he took a return tloket from ABhburton to Waahdyke, at Temaka he got a Becond class ticket to Timarn and on the return journey he took a firßt aloes ticket from Tlmaru to Washdyke, retamiog to ABhbarton on bia market ticket. At Waahdyke he got out on to the platform bat returned to the carriage Immediately. On the jiurney down de. fondant sajd he wanted to go on to Timarn and asked wltneßa to rebook him from Washdyke. Witness Bald that he oould oot do aaoh a thing, It was against the regulations. In Bpite of all that wltnesß told him, defendant petalated m going to Tlmaru and refueed to pay tho ordinary fare, as aakedby witness, from ABhburton, 'i hla was the case for the Department — Mr Grahtm wished to call evidence to show that It was a common thing for people to travel on market ticketi, bat Mr Joynt objected.— l. R 0. 0. O^aham, the defendant, gave evidence. Ho eaid that he bonght the ticket bb a return ticket and did not go a yard farther than it entitled hlcn to go In reply to the Court the de fendant admitted having taken the tiokcfc with the intention, at the time of starting, of going to Tlmaru. It was a common thing for people having coonslon to travel

to take advantage of the cheip farea on market days and he did not ccc that he had done anything beyond his rights. —The M^g'atrate m giving judgment, aaid that it appeared that the market tickets issued by the department are special tickets used between certain points to where markets are held, and not ordinary return tickets. The defendant admitted

that he had no business at Waßhdyke, wherea market waaheld, r.nd had no intea-

tlon of going (here, his business being at Tlmara. In asking for a ticket to Washdyke he implied '<hat he bad buataesa at that place, and It seemed to the Court that he was taking an unfair advantage of the regulations m travelling to Tiraaru on a special tioket Issued for the Waßhdyke market only. There wai thaa a oloai evaalon of the payment of the fare to Titnara. Jadgment was given for the plalntlfl for the differeuoa between the payments mad 9 and the full fare— 4s 7d —and coats.

The Oonrt then rose