Folding E.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 66, 13 November 1884, Page 2

Folding E.M. Court

I • Wednesday, November 12tb, 1884. (Before H. Ward, Esq., 8.M.) DBUNX. Samuel Rowley was charged on the I information of Constable Gillespie with, J being drunk and disorderly m the streets I of Feilding on the 4th inst. Mr Staite ' appeared for defendant, and admitted the charge. Fined 20s and costs 15s. CBUELTY TO AKIMALS. James Palmer, was charged on fhe information of the Constable with unlawfully driving a horse in a cart • when the animal was lame and totally unfit for work. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Gillespie gave evidence as to seeing the horse being driren while in an unfit state. Witness was asked several questions , by defendant as to the alleged lameness of the animal. W. Fowles corroborated the constable's evidence as to the horse being driren while lame and evidently in great pain. Defendant deposed that the horse had been lame for a long time, but the horse had been used by liis boy without his knowledge. Fined 20s and costs 9s. BBEACH OP LICENSING ACT. M. E. Samuel, hoielkeeper, of Awahuri, was charged on the information of the police with unlawfully encouraging James Ewing to remain drtmk on the premises of the defendant on the 22nd of Sept. last. Mr Slaife watched the case on behalf of Ewing, and Mr Prior appeared fop the ■ defendant. James Ewing deposed to going U the hotel having a g©od sum of money about him, of which Mr Samuel got the lion's share ; paid him a large sum of- money for liquors, sometimes by cash, and sometimes by cheque and orders ; was afterwards ordered to leave the premises ; the constable was sent for and found him ill being nearly in the horrors, but said he was too ill to be locked up, and warned ' Samuel not to snpply him with any more liquor ; on the 22nd had a greal dea^ to drink at the hotel ; had drinks with Samuel after the latter had been warned not to supply him; Samuel did not encourage him to remain at the hotel after being warned ; it was his owe desire to be there. [His Worship on examining the Act, here remarked that there should be some clear evidence of the charge of encouragement, or that the charge should be brought under some other section of the Act, as he was afraid it was scarcely strong enough for him to convict upon.} Cross-examined ; Witness admitted having been requested by defendant to leave the premises ; had been given drink to go, but not offered money ; had been requested to leave after the day the oonstabie came. By the Bench : Defendant did not do anything to try to induce him to remain on the premises after the policeman came. Constable Gillespie deposed to being sent for by defendant on account of Ewing, as he was nearly in the horrors ; Samuel told him in witness' presence to leave the premises; witness refused to take him in charge, and told Mr Samuel not to supply him with any more liqnor. By Mr Prior; Saw Ewing have a glass at the hotel a few days afterwards, but said nothing about it to either of them, as he thought Ewing had leit the house. His Worship again said he thought he could not convict upon the evidence before him, and the charge must therefore be dismissed. INJUBY. TO PBOtEBTY. Louisa Belfit was charged by Joseph, Belfit her father-in-law, with unlawfully doing certain damage to his property in Warrick street on 22nd of October last This charge arose out of a case of alleged abduction which was adjudicated upon in the court a few days ago, "and with which the public are already familiar. It appeared that the defendant had broken open a door of the house in which her own child was being detained from her. Mr Prior appeared for complainant and Mr Staite for defendant. Considerable argument was. held between counsel and the Bench as to the reasonableness of the conduct of defendant, but it was thought advisable to hear the evidence. Louisa Belfit deposed to forcing open the door of the house to get her child ; did not think she broke the door- and thought she was doing right in forcing it open to get her child away. Cross-examined : There was a defcd of separation from her husband; brought the two children to the father at the house and left them there, but afterwards went to fetch this one away. His Worship held that the defendant had acted under the supposition that she had a right to do what she did, whether she had or not. ' Charge dismissed with costs. THE FENCING ACT. James Harvey was charged by Wm Amott with having neglected to do his share of a dividing fence between c the parties' properties, in the Borough of Feilding, and complainant now applied for the court to adjudicate with reference to the cost of the work, it having been done by him in pursuance of the Act. Mr Prior appeared for the complainant. The defence was that ihe whole of the work done was not necessary, and that the charge, viz., £1 per chain, was excessive. Complainant was examined, and also asked several questions by defendant. His evidence was to the effect that the fence was necessary and the charges for it reasonable. For the defence, Isaac Chureher deposed as to a great number of the stabs removed from the old fence and taken

possession of by complainant being perfectly sound ; there was jealousy between the parties, and he did not think the new fence was necessary, but only wanted "defendant deposed to the old fence being continually broken by complainant's bull and witness repairing it till he got tired of doing so; the stabs taken away were a great mauy of them good ; considered 3s would have made the fence cood Cross-examined : "Was a monthly tenant, and didn't want, nor was he able, lo spend much money upon the fence. Defendant was ordered to pay 10s and to receive half the st-ibs back again. BREACH OF THB LICENSING ACT. M. E. Samuel, of the Awahuri Hotel, was charged with unlawfully using his house for the pur nose of bettiug with persons resorting thereto, on the lOiii instant. Mr Prior appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Edwin John Cottreli, storekeeper, of Feildmg, was giving his evidence, when at this stage Mr Prior applied for an adjournment on the ground that the summons had only just been issued and two important witnesses were net present. Adjourned till next court day. CIVIL CASES. C. Gascoigne v Ruerate.— Claim £4 8s Bd. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appoarance of defendant. Judgment for plainti ff and costs. E. J. Cottreli v J. H. Taylor.— Ciaim £6 3s 4d. Mr Staite for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. A contra account of £1 11s 6d was admitted. Judgment for balance and costs. Same vA. Dick.— Claim £\ 12s. Mr Staite for plaintiff, who said the amount of claim had been received, and he now applied for costs. Judgment given for costs. James Ewing v M. 1L Samuel.— Claim £20. Mr Staite for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant. Mr Staite said plaintiff had received £15 from defendant on account of the claim. Plaintiff was put into tlie bos and said be had agreed to settle the case on defendant paying costs, which he promised to do. Defendant admitted having agreed to pay any " further costs." Judgment was gifen for costs, £1 11s. Graff v J. Bradley.— Claim £9 16s 84. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Meyer v Montoith. —Claim £6 19s 4d. Mr I'rior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. D. E. Lowers v O'Toole.— Judgment summons for £4 8a 9d. This case had several times been adjourned, and was now adjourned again for one month. Same v Morphy. — Judgment summons for £9 6s 7d. Adjourned till next court day. Skelly v Tauheta Wereta. -Judgment summons for £3 17s 3d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. To be paid forthwith or four days imprisonment. C. Gascoigne v Dewry.— Claim £10 17s 6d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. After hearing the evidence -judgment was eucered for £9 17s 6d and costs. John A. Belk v FT. Penberfchy.— Claim £1 for commission on the purchase of a trap by plaintiff £or defendant. M r Prior for defendant. His Worship gave judgment for defendant, without order for costs. D. McKenzie v John Smith.— Claim £6 3s for sheep sold for meat for a contractor's camp. Mr Esam for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant. Judgment given for plaintiff and costs. The court then adjourned. CRIMINAL. FAILING TO SUPPOET. Mathow Murray, of Marton, wns charged by Mary Ann Crook, of Feilding, with having failed and refused to contribute toward the support of her illegitimate female child, of which he was said to be the father. Mr S taite appeared for the complainant, and Mr Esam for the defendsint who denied the paternity. All witnesses were ordered out of court and a number ot females being present His Worship said they would erercise good taste in not remaining in court, and ho would request them to leave, which they did. The cemplainant deposed to defendant being the father of her child, and his havasked her to impute paternity to some one else ; witness told him her condition, and he confessed the paternity ; refused to tell defendant's mother who was father of her (witness') child; had not been intimate with any one else; the child was present, and it resembled defendant. [The child was here brought into court. and afterwards removed.] Mrs Foster, of Feilding, nursed her in confinement and she told hor defendant was the father but told no one else. j. Witness here related the particulars of her intimacy with defendant.] Cross-examined: "Was engaged at first by Mrs Murray for a month; told her she expected to be married at a certain time, and gave the name of her intended ; got a holiday and rode home to Feilding ; told Mrs Murray she wanted j to come to a wedding, but there wasn't one ; did see her young man on that day; on the day of the Marton races went to an entertainment ; did see her young man that night. [Further details of the intimacy were here elicited.] When she told Mrs Murray of her state she gave the name of another person as the father as she didn't want to get defendant info a row ; afterwards told her it was her son's and no one else's. Re-examined : Witness swore to defendant having been intimate with her several times, and that no one else had. Sarah Jane Foster deposed to nursing complainant in her confinement on the *13th of February last. fOn witness being asked what complainant said to her atont the paternity, Mr Esam objected to any evidence of that description being given, and quoted authorities for exceptional cases in which hearsay evidence is admissable. His Worship afterwards ruled that the evidence could not be admitted] The defendant was now examined by Mr Staite and denied being the father of the child, and swore repeatedly that he had never had connection with the complainant at any time whatever ; had never told her to father the child on any one else. John Bishop, blacksmith, of Feilding, on affirmation, deposed to complainant having been in his service for about two years, during which time she slept at his house. John Hugh M urray, farmer, of Ellershe, near Marton, mid father of the defendant

was next examined, and acknowledged wnting a letter (produced) in which said he had reason to believe his so^ waf innocent; witness' wife came to Femlin.a to ses compliant to a* T <: her why she had fathered the child on her son when she had told her it was some one cisc; witness fully believed his son was not the father of the child. Tnis closed the evidence, and Mr Esatn contended that llmre was no proof of the defendant being the father except the complainant's own statements.and that nc corroberative evidence had been given. His Worship was of the same opinion, and said the charge must, be dismissed. He would not order complainant to pay costs, simply on account of her unfortunate positiou.