MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2909, 27 February 1893, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBUR TON-MONDAY.

(Before MajurSteward, J.P.) Obscenb Lastghjaue. -Stephen Welch, with several aliases, pleaded guilty to having been drunk and disorderly, and also to having used obscene language. It appears prisoner had just been released from gaol, after a sentence of eight days, and then had no money. Wlion arrested last he had twenty-five shillings. He had gone to Windlow on Sunday afternoon, arriving there in a state, of intoxication. He applied for admission to the Winslow Hotel, and oh heing refused either admission or drink made use of very foul language, He alto produced a bottle of beer, and drank it outside the hotel. He made a great disturbance and wanted to fight all and sundry. All this was going on just as the people were going to church. The bad language was provved by two witnesses. The Sergeant said the police records proved Welch to be a notorious^ criminal, who had been almost continuously in gaol since 1887, and devoted his time when out of gaol to loafing on drunken men. The Sergeant went into the man's doings since Friday last, but the Bench decMned to take any hint of possible larceny into account in considerng the charges ;aid against Welch now, ! but sent.him to gaol for three months on thfcso, arrl ordered him to pay 7* 6d cost.incurred on his beholf by the police. Resisting a Bailijff.—William Doh'erty was brought up on remand, charged with resisting A. M. Pearson, bailiff of the R.M. Court, while in the execution of his duty, arid with using bad languages -J. C. Uell gave evidenct- as to seeing Doherty resist the appropriation by Pearson of a h'irse in the Arcade, and at thfijatter's request went for the police. Doheity used some very strong Janguage. —J. 0. Duncan., also saw the struggle (or the horse, bub heard no bad language.—David Matson, clerk in David Thomas's employ, said three horses were entered for sale on Saturday by William Doherty, one of which was seised by the bailiff. Defendant put in documents to sh.>w that the judgment on which the warrant had been issued had been satisfied a long time before the seizure, and therefore thought he had a right to resist the seizure — R. M. Cuthbertson corroborated defendant's statement up to a curtain point, buc the warrant had been issued on a balance that the.^e documents did not cover. He did not think Doherty would have resisted the seizure had he had any idoa that there was any claim still unsatisfied, and he certainly thought there was not. —A. M. Pearson said that on a day previous to the seizure he ittd the warrant over to Doheriy, who then said he was quite convinced tha<; everything was paid. Told Poherty he would seize the horse on Saturday. The bench said that while having every consideration for Mr Doherty in the circumstances, it had to be borne in mind th.it when a warrant was issued by the Court, it was no part of the officer's duty entrusted with its execution f to consider what view the defendant might take of it, and he mUst he protected in the execution of his duly, and defendants must not a«, Mr Doherty had done, take the law in their own hands. If a wrongful seizure has been made the law provides a remedy for the defendant to ava;l himself of, but he must not interfere with the bailiff. He would be fined £1 for the offence against the bailiff, and the charge of using abusive language would be dismissed.