Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 38, 11 September 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, Sept. 10th, 1884. (Before K. Ward, Esq., R.M.)

Police v Gray. — This was a charge, adjourned from last court day, of selling beer without a license. Evidence having since been furnished that defendant was selling for his employer, who was a duly licensed brewer, the charge was by leave . of the court withdrawn. | a DBU-nrT I Samuel Rowley was charged on the information of Constable "Gillespie with being drunk in the streets of Feilding on the 15th of August last. Mr Prior appeared for the accused who pleaded not guilty. Ihe Constable was put into the box, and said the case was brought on last court day, and dismissed -without prejudice. He again gave evidence of seeing defendant drunk in the streets several times on the above date. Cross examined : Accused was very much intoxicated and not capable of taking care of himself ; did not think it a case of recovery from previous drinking ; did not know from his own knowledge that the accused had tasted drink that day, but knew that he was intoxicated ; did not on that day advise him to keep sober, but had frequently done so on former occasions. E. Eskilson deposed that he was a storekeeper in Feilding ; saw defendant drunk on the day named ; this was shortly before the train came in from Wangauni. Cross-examined: Did not know till yesterday that he would be required to give evidence ; it was not a fact that accused and he had been on bad terms ; hud a little difficultly with him about a shop witness had rented of defendant. E. Goodbehere deposed to his father keeping a record of the weather, which witness did on that day as his father was away. [Witness gave the reading of the weather guage for that day, which showed only a slight fall of rain in the morning. the defence being that the day which at the previous sitting of the court defendant had admitted to, having been, drunk was a yery wet day.J For the defence Mrs Rowley wife of accused deposed to his not , being out in the streets at all on the day named in the information ; he was very unwell ; was positive be was not • intoxicated on thst day. •-'■; ■•> Cross-examined : Defendant did sometimes have liquor in thV' bouse, and occasionally' took too much ; there was no liquor in the. house that day. and had . there, been, he was too ill- to take>its Mary Kowley, daughter of the accused deposed to being iri the house the best '. part of the day, and .otherwise eyrroberated the evidence of the previous witness. : ross-examined : Her 'father might have had liquor on that day without her i knowing it. '■■>■■■.■■'„'-,' The accused, who volunteered hi» evidence, said. he was very fill, and had ' been taking very powerful 'medicine ; he was of .a very nervous temperament ; positively denied being drunk or having had liquor that day. - _ The Constable recalled said he had not the slightest doubt about the -accused being drunk on the day named. His Worship after consulting the Act, ■ regretted that although' the- evidence was I conflicting he- could not but convict. ' Fined 10. and costs. , rp civu CASES. , Wm. Whisker v JohA Llewellyn.— Claim £4 12s 2d. No appearance of ' defendant. Judgment 'for plaintiff and 1 -:-osts. • -• E. J. CottreJl v _. Morphy.— Claim £8 Is lid: Mr Prior for. plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. ' ' , ' Same v F v J, Rowley.— Claim __1 18s lOd. ' No" appearance' o_ ;1 defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and, .eppfs." Same vT. Hall. -Claim £2 6d. To be paid at 15s per month as offered by defendant, j ■. A. Dermer v A. McGlashan. — Claim £3 4s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Part of the amount had been' paid iuto court. Judgment for 8d and costs. 1 'Lewer* V John Llewellyn. — Claim £14 5s lOd. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs.Same y Wm. Holland.— Claim £8 9s, on dishonored promissory*! note. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No/ appearance of defendant. Case adjourned on application of plaintiffs counsel for further proof. Samev Elizabeth OToole. —Claim on i'udgment summons for £4 8s 9d. Mr -rior for plaintiff. It appeared that defendant had married since incurring the debt. Case adjourned by order of the court. J. J. Jensen v R. Webb. — Judgment summons for £23 5s _d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No; appearance of defendant. The sum of £6 had been paid. Balance to be paid forthwith, in default 17 days imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. [This case was culled, in error. It had been settled out ©f court.] '..L'-.'.J S. Nelson v Hamuera. -Claim £15 17s 6d. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Hankins for defendant. Tbis casehas £lreada| been several times before the court aiKP adjourned, and evidence on 'both s : des has been reported in our. columns The plaintiff stated his case and wa* crossexamined. The defendant and" 1 - several other Maori witnesses were also examined and ei_si-ex_mined at length through Mr Baker, native interpreter: After both counsel had addressed the court, His Worphip gummed up the evidence, and gave judgment for rhe defendant with costs and counsel's fee. '„':'-' Cottrell v Amesbury.— ClaVth" £2 8s 3d. Mr Prior for defendant 1 . A set off , of £1 13s had been* filetf, and £1 .Os'^d had been paid -intq court. Both plaintiff and defendant, . and also a boy named Bellve, weieexa.-iiaed and cross-examined, after which -judgment was entered for defendant and J .oits. Loudon v Wm. Holland. -Claim £8 9s on dishonored promissory note.. Mr Prior for. plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and Coßtß. . ' ....... ■'".■ -"'l'l '.'.""; Several cases were settled oiflffof court, which then iid*jouht.ed.