RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURTS.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 630, 1 February 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURTS.

GREYMOUTH. Monday, January 31. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Drtjnk and Disorderly. — William Thompson was charged with committing a breach of the peace at half-past one o'clock on Sunday morning, in Tainui street. Martin Kennedy, carter, stated that the defendant came to his cottage and tried to push in the door, and attempted to strike him when he pushed him away. The night-watchman was passing, brought Constable M'Guire, i and the defendant was apprehended. The Magistrate said this was one of those cases in which men of the prisoner's stamp, goingabout in search of low houses, attempted to enter decent houses and molested rej spectable persons in their own homes. He would be fined L 2, or four days' imprisonment. David Leisking was charged with disorderly conduct. At the same time as the last offence was committed this defendant was in Thompson's company, assisting him. He was in a fighting attitude, wanting to fight Kennedy, and the constable heard him call Kennedy's wife some abominable names. Fined Ll, or two days' imprisonment. James Dunn was charged with being drunk and incapable. The defendant said he was supplied with liquor by persons who wished to make sport for themselves. The Magistrate said he believed the statement, because it had come to his knowledge that persons who ought to know better adopted this very unwise course of making sport for themselves ; but still he must deal severely with the defendant, there being such a long list of convictions against him. Sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labor. Offence against the Public-House Ordinance. — Dennis Buggy was charged with keeping open his house, the Niagara Hotel, after 11 o'clock on the 25th. There was music and dancing going on in the house until half-past one o'clock ; the bar was lit up, and a side door open. When asked for his permission to keep open, he said he had none. The defendant denied the charge, but called no witnesses, although he admitted that there were a number of persons in the house at the time. Fined L 5 and costs. Destroying a Tail-race. — Joseph Pelander, Mason, and Peter, were charged, on the information of Samuel Williams, with wilfully and maliciously filling in and destroying one drain-race of the Value of L 5. Mr Newton appeared for the complainant, awd Mr Perkins for the defendants. Samuel Williams said his tailrace was situated within the Borough, about a quarter of a mile from Nelson street. This race was cut by Fitzgerald and mate between April and May 1869. They retained possession of it until about November last, when they gave it up to us. We have since then been using it to drain the ground we were working. Tha depth of the race where the injury is done is about four feet. At this point the defendants have a fluraing across the race. There; was no dispute between us previously about this race, but we have had constant disputes. About 26th DecemJ c? last the defendants jbegan filling up the race with dirt about fifteen feet below their flu niing over it. We asked them if they knew what they were doing, because the race was ours, but they only laughed and jeered at us. We were advised to bring an action, but did not ; we simply cleared; out the race and went to work again. About the 20th January the three defendants were again throwing in dirt, scrub, $n f d logs into the tail-race, filling it in for about 26 yards. The stuff was useless to act as a dam to the water. They never about the race, that it was interfering with their workings in any wayy.fejjt simply came and filled it up. The effect of the damage is to swamp out our claiiji and stop our workings. In cross-examination the complainant said he was working in ground which he claimed, but wfiich had been marked off all round him by the Town Surveyor for Pelander and party. He and his party claimed half-an-acre, which he had marked out there; they had never asked Pelander for permission to work there. A number of witnesses were called to prove the possession of the ground and the: fiUing-in of the race. The defence was; that the defendants held the prior right to

the ground, having obtained permission to occupy the six-acre block from the Borough Council, and the claim of the plaintiffs was included in it. They called R. J. Johnston, Town Surveyor, who said : 1 surveyed this claim and saw the obstruction on Thursday and Saturday. Three logs were thrown into the creek, brambles, and earth. The effect is to cause the , water to be backed into the head-race of Pelander, which would otherwise be almost ; dry. The obstruction could be removed for less than L 2. I remember telling Fitzgerald and party that the Swiss party had applied for six acres which encompassed their claim. They replied that they did not care, as they were working a syirface claim, and the lease was for deep sinking. Afterwards Fitzgerald and party abandoned the ground. Pelander and i party got permission from the Council to extend their head-race, on condition that they did not interfere with Fitzgerald and party or Williams and party. — Joseph 1 Mendeysaid: I was working with Pelander and party. Last Friday week the race was filled in. That day Williams and party were engaged sluicing on the beach , within 100 yards of the Australasian Hot el. 1 In cross-examination, he said they had no shovels in their hands ; they were moving things about. He had frequently seen them working on the. beach, but never on the six-acre block. • Robert Keown, land-: lord of the. Australasian Hotel, said : I have seen the obstruction to the race. It could be cleared out for L 2. I have not 1 seen the complainants working on the ; beach for two months. The Magistrate, after reviewing the case, 1 said there wasnotsufficientevidenceforhim 1 to decide which party was the legal owners 1 of the ground, and lie would express no ■ opinion whatever on the point. He was simply there to say whether the injury was done wilfully and maliciously. There 1 was no malice proved, therefore the case would be dismissed, with costs. Assault. — Gourlay, bailiff, v. Fulloon. —This was a charge of assaulting a bailiff 1 in the execution of his duty by spitting in 1 his face. It appeared that the bailiff went to a dance-room to serve the defendant 1 with a summons.- She refused to take it, 1 when the bailiff threatened to read it out • before the whole roomful of people. She then took it, tore it in pieces, and threw it at him. The bailiff said something about knowing how to deal with such characters, when the defendant turned round and spat in his face. He also said the girl picked up a tumbler to throw at him, but this was denied by the witnesses. A good deal of argument took place as to whether this constituted anas3ault, but the Magisi trate held that it was, and fined the defen- ; dant Ll and costs. ! • -