AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 617, 13 June 1882, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Fr'Day, Junf 9

Befoub Justin Ayi.mgr, Esq., R.M,

ILLEGALLY SELLING GAME.

Joseph McJTarlane on remand was charged with this offence. No further evidence for the prosecution was brought forward by the police. Defendant said that he did not know when he sold the bag, containing toe game, to Chamberlain, what it contained. He had been told to take it io Akaroa and sell it for 18s, and he had done so without knowing what it held.

His Worship said he would give the accused the benefitof what doubt there might be as lo the contents of the package, which was afterwards found lo contain game. Altogether the story was a veiy improbable one, still as the penalties were exceedingly heavy, £20 being the lowest he could impose by law, he would dismiss the case. The case should not only act as a warning to him, but to others. On any fa sure occasion persons brought up under the act would be severely dealt with.

BREACH OK DOG REGISTRATION ACT

J. Knight, o£ Lavenck's Bay, was accused of having an unregistered dog in his possession on May sth. Defendant produced a receipt dated May 4t,h. Sergeant Willis gave evidence that on May oth he had met Knight in Akaro-i, and Knight informed him, in the presence of: John Sunckell, jun., that the dog was not registered. He had advised Knight to go to Mr Sims and register it at once, but defendant refused, saying he would rather pay the money in his own district. Defendant then said that the statement he made to the sergeant on May sth was only "humbug." He had registered the dog with J. Priest atOkain's. The Bench said the whole case appeared to have aa extremely suspicious appearance, and he would adjourn it to the 20th inst. in order that Priest might 'c in attendance with the regisl ration books. Defendant then remarked that be did not want to give the Court any unnecessary trouble, and would settle the affair at once. The Bench, as a matter of course, rejected this proposal, administering a severe reproof. 01V• L CASE?:. RnHivan and Ward v. Akavoa and Wfiinui Road Boaul. Cairn £-<5 os 10d. Mr Nalde" , for plaintiffs. This was a claim for a coniract slated by plaintiffs lo be iVii'Jod,

Mr Birwick, on belief of the Road Txnwd. maid that the work had been done to oblige a ratepiyc, on the condition lint he paid for ihe work, his rates being afiercvjirds remitted till the amount was repaid him. A cheque had been drawn by tlie R'uxd Board to pay the contractors, but had not been given because Mr Sandys, tiie ratepayer in question, had been away ami not yet paid in the money to the Boa>d's credit. Mr Sandys had also arranged with the contractors for some exira culverts, the original contract being taken for £31 6s?.

Judgment for £31 6e and costs. The Court then adjourned.