AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 183, 18 April 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, April 16. (Before Justin Ayhner, Esq., R.M.) CATTLE TRESPASS. For the above offence, the following penalties were inflicted .*—Wm. Penlington, two cases, 10s each with costs ; C. W. Bridge, two cases, 5s each with costs ; C. Alger, G Lardner, A. Scott, E. Ditely, R. Knight, A. Rodrigues, S. Lee, 5s respectively with costs. CHIMNEY ON FIRE. G A. Oborn, for allowing the chimney of his dwelling-house to be on fire, was fined 5s and costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Eli Boriaud was brought up on the above to show cause why he had not paid the sum of £4 16s as ordered. ~ Mr J. Waeckerle acted as interpreter. The defendant said he had the means wherewith to pay, but tbat he refused to do so. The Bench made order for payment by noon on the 17th inst., or, in default, one month's imprisonment. Civil Cases, w. barnett v. m'cullough. This was a claim for £30 for damage alleged to have been caused by the defendant lighting fires on land adjoining the plaintiff. Mr Nalder appeared for the plaintiff. W. Barnett deposed that he remembered Tuesday, the 2nd April. He was sowing grass seed at that date, and went to his land to work at about 10 o'clock that morning. M'Cullough was with him up to a certain point (indicated on the map) where he got off his horse, and continued his way to his land. He (Barnett) then went on sowing grass seed, and about 20 minutes after M'Cullough left him, observed fires in that direction, though M'Cullough had not mentioned anything about lighting fires. The fire caught his (Barnett's) property about dinner time, and raged till night. The wind was against the fire. The timber burnt he valued at £30. Would swear there was no other fire that could have lit his land. The value of the grass seed burnt was £5 16s ; tools and rails, £2 10s, which amount he had applied for. The fire was burning for an hour or two before catching his land. Would not swear there were no other fires but M'Cullough's, but the wind was from tbe wrong quarter to bring any fire on to his land. Did not light any fire himself that day. Remembered meeting the defendant on tho 10th April, who asked— " What about that fire ? " To which he replied—" You should have come to me, not let me have to write to you," but ho would swear that he did not tell M'Cullough that he had lit a fire to try and stop the progress of th*» one lit by defendant. The only fire he had lit that day was a small one on a cleared space-to boil the billy. There was a fire at the time on Smith's land..

Joseph Barnett said : On the day in question I worked for M'Cullough. We lit fires on his land about 11 o'clock that day. There were, fires all down the spur within three or four chains of me when M'Cullough arrived. I don't know when my uncle's land caught fire. His land was five chains off. By defendant—l remember asking bow the fire got into the flat below belonging to my uncle, near Smith's ground. Cannot say whether I said the old man must have lit it. I did not burn for my uncle. When defendant came to me to put some fire in, we found other fires lit on his land, but cannot say who lit them. We did light more fires, but on the upper side. The wind was against M'C'.dlough's land.

H. Barnett deposed that he went with his uncle, the plaintiff, on the 2nd April, and saw fires on "vl'Cullough's land. This Avas about 10.30 in the morning. The fire spread'to plaintiff's land between twelve and one o'clock. Smith's fires were burning about a quarter of a mile off. Some 12 acres of thick grass were burnt and timber to the value of £30. There were 100 head of stock on the ground. By the Bench—l did not see M'Cullough that day. There was a good deal of damage done.

C. W. Bridge gave evidence as to the value of grass seed, the quantity of stock that the land would carry, and the amount of seed required in sowing.

Henry Perry deposed—l commenced lighting fires on Smith's land early in the morning on the date in question, about 20 chains from M'CulloUgh's land. The wind was blowing from Smith's. By Mr Nalder —It was on the 2nd April between eight and nine in the morning that I lit the

fires. Cannot say I saw any fires on M'Cullough's land at that time. Thomas Smith said—l remember meeting Mr Barnett on the 10th April. % was with M'Cullough. A conversation took place about the fires, and Barnett alluded to the damage done. I understood him to : say that he lit a fire to stop MfCullough's.' By Mr Nalder—l feel Sure ihe allowed! this. ■ \ f- a .•'■■■■■. \ : : '''•■•' George Hall gave eyidence. that he had been asked by'M'Cullough to go and see the amount of damage done, but that he considered there was but little done to the timber, and that altogether the fire had benefited the plaintiff. Duncan Dewar and David Wright gave evidence that there were fires all over the Peninsula at the time. r The defendant deposed—l know nothing of how the fire started ; it was alight when I went on the ground. My man lit some | fires, but on tbe top of the bill. Barnett's land is down in the gully, and the wind was against my lire proceeding in that direction. I swear Barnett told me he had lit a fire to stop mine. The Bench said there was no evidence to prove whose fire lit the plaintiff's land, and judgment was accordingly given for the defendant with costs. J. PRICE V. G. WASCOE. Judgment in this case, which hod been reserved from Saturday last at Little River, was now given, the plaintiff being, non-suited with costs. T. OLDRIDGE, V. PRIEST, AND J. B. BARKER V P. CALLAGHAN. This was a petition brought against the defendant's election as a member of the Okain's Road Board, on the grounds that a person unqualified to vote bad signed the defendant's nomination paper, and had illegally voted. The case was laid under the Local Elections Act, 1876. Mr Nalder for the defendant. T. Oldridge deposed—l was told that, according to the Act, Callaghan was illegally elected. I signed the petition because I was asked to. I have no personal feeling in the matter, and know nothing of it.

J. B. Barker said—l am Chairman of the ! Okain's Road Board. On the 30th of March, the first meeting was held after the election on the 23rd. Before going into the room I met Mr Priest, who told me that young Fluerty had signed Callaghan's nomination paper, and that he had no right to sign, having no land in the district. He requested me to bring the matter before the Board. I did so. and sent for Fluerty. I asked him what qualification he had to vote, and what land he had. He replied that he had none, but that some time back he had bought land from his father, and that Mr Bishop had put his name on the roll. When Callaghan came in I told him he could not take his seat that day. This case is laid under the 48th clause of the Act. Some further discussion elicited the fact that Fluerty was on the roll, and had paid his rates, the receipt for the same being produced. The Bench said this was fatal to the petition. The whole case seemed a most extraordinary proceeding to * say the least of it. The petition would be thrown out, and Mr Callaghan's election declared legal and valid. The costs of the case would be divided between Messrs Priest and Barker, evidently the prime movers in the matter, Oldridge having been merely made a catspaw of. The Court then adjourned.

Thursday, April 18. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.,) ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Mrs Fulton charged J. Keenan with using abusive and threatening language. Mr Nalder appeared for complainant. Case dismissed with costs 10s 6d. CONTEMPT OF COURT. The same defendant who had came into Court intoxicated, and who had not the sense to hold his tongue, was'sentenced to twenty-four hours imprisonment for contempt. For the future he will perhaps agree witli the Turkish proverb '." Speech is silvern, but silence is golden. The court then adjourned. -