RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1841, 30 June 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Tuesday, June 26. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) J. Johnston v. W. Clanghessy.-r-The defendant was summoned for using obscene language towards the defendant, calculated to provoke a breach of the. peace. - The dispute arose about the boundaries of , the. sections the parties occupy in the township kt Hatter's Terrace, Nelson Creek. The complainant put a peg in a certain spot, arid the defendant pulled it out, and threw' it away, whereupon an altercation took place, and the language complained was read. The defendant was fined 10s, with costs. VI i . A.' Ellis v. J; ' Haywood^Th'is was a similar charge to the last. The scene of the occurrence was the same. The com.plainant stated that he had for the last two years been subjected to considerable annoyance,, whenever, he. visited Hatter's Terrace, by the defendant and others, ; in consequence of an idea which was abroad, that he, the complainant, had constituted himself the guardian of the. good; behavior of the licensed victuallers of the district, and censor-general of the public-house morality of the community. On this occasion the defendant attacked him'in a most unwarrantable manner, and very nearly provoked him to commit a serious breach of the. peace. . The . complainant further stated that h6 did not wish to press the present charge, but he would take the opportunity of correcting a popular delusion existing at Nelson Creek; that he was in constant/communication with^the authorities with respect to the. doings of the ale-house keepers of the i district. |He positively denied that this was the case, and he would appeal to his Worship to bear him out in his statement. The defendant admitte.d.-'^that : he did use rather strong languageftowards the complainant, and the Magistrate, after confirming the statements of Mr Ellis, fined the defendant 30sj with costs. J : : ", ' ' civil cases;;. ' > ' Hoby v.' Potts.— The plaintiff claimed L 5 as damages for an' alleged ' breach of contract by the defendant in refusing the use of a saddle horse,for the hire of which r plaintiff had < paid. The plaintiff 'said he hired a horse from the defendant to go from Nelson Oreek\ to. Ahaura,. and paid 30a for the trip. He called at the, hut of some hiinera, while in sight of the defen-' dant's house, and one of the occupants of the hut asked the use of the hpr3 ; e^tp ride to ;the defendant's -place for some' papers he wished to Ahaura. He allowed the man to take the,' horse, but when the animal -reached the . defendant's i he put it into the stable, and would not allow the plaintiff the use of it, whereby he was greatly ' ir con venienced and suffered in consequence. / the damage .claimed. . The defence wa^s that the plaintiff did not' proceed 6n his : journey-within 1 a reasonable time after he hired the horse. He was away about an hour when another man .came tearing over the shingle and boulders in the river I bed at full gallop with the horse. He (the defendant) put the horse in the stable and refused to give it to plaintiff afterwards when he asked for it, because he was not fit to. take charge, or care of the _ beast. A" verdict was given for the plaintiff for the amount of the horse-hire, which the defendant was directed tb refund, the Magistrate remarking that the defendant was justified in refusing the horse to the plaintiff when he was not. fit totake care of it. ■ ; ..',-. ir \