CHRISTCHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 671, 13 April 1859, Page 4

CHRISTCHURCH.

Wednesday, April 6.

[Before John Hall, R.M., John Bealey, and Joseph Bbitain, Esqes.] Alfred C. Barker was fined 2s. 6d. for having a horse tethered in Worcester-street. William Gosling was fined 2s. 6d. for a similar offence in Kihnore-street. Robert Allen was also fined 15s. for allowing 8 calves to wander at large in the town of Christchurch. Samuel Orchard appeared to answer a charge of drunkenness and indecent exposure. Defendant admitted the charge, and was fined 10s. for drunkenness, and 40s. on the other charge. BBEACH OF SHEEP OBDINANCE. Alfred Hornbrook, of Mount Pleasant station, appeared to answer a charge of having 3000 scabby sheep in his possession. Thomas K. Adams, inspector of sheep, deposed that on the 10th of March last, on his way to Major Hornbrook's station, he fell in with some sheep bearing Major Hornbrook's registered brand. He caught two, and found one infected with the disease, the other appearing suspicious. He subsequently saw defendant, who said it was not necessary to muster the sheep to prove the disease. This was the first inspection he had made of Major Hornbrook's flock. The appeaarnce of the remainder of the sheep, from among which he had caught the infected one, was tolerably healthy. The disease in the sheep he had caught was about a month or five weeks old.

The defendant admitted the charge, stating that he had dipped the sheep three times within the last twelve months. Convicted, and fined £100. The penalty to be placed on record, and to be enforced, unless a clean certificate be produced by the 3rd day of August next.

Charles Andrew Freeland was also charged by Mr. Adams with the possession of 5000 scabby sheep.

These sheep formed the subject of a previous charge for depasturing infected sheep, which was preferred by Mr. Boulton, inspector for the (Southern District, on the 19th of March last.

Mr. Adams deposed that he inspected these sheep at defendant's request, on the 26th "ult., and found one lamb infected, with the disease in an incipient state. He had inspected these sheep before about two months ago, before they left Stoneyhurst, and he believed that up to the 27th January they were clean. Defendant admitted the charge; and said that he took delivery of the sheep at iStoneyhurst about 4th or sth of February. They were clean at that time, aud were dipped two days before they left the Stoneyhurst run. Convicted and fined £100. The penalty to be enforced, unless a clean certificate be produced by the 27th of July next. PARKINSON V. ALLEN. —ASSAULT. The facts of this case which gave rise to the charge were these: The complainant, Parkinson, on Monday week last, had an appointment with defendant, which from various causes he was unable to. keep. He met defendant, however, at the White Hart the same afternoon. Defendant appeared much excited; and making use of strong language struck complainant on the cheek with his fist, drawing blood. Complainant then told him he should summons him for. the assault, upon which Alien began mocking complainant's manner of speaking, and then complainant struck him with his whip on the ribs. They then closed and had a scuffle, and were parted by Samuel Duffcy. The evidence of several witnesses who were brought forward went to prove the truth of the statement of complainant, and shewed that the assunlt had boon commenced on the part of Allen. Defendant denied having struck the first blow; he stated that lie was very much irritated in consequence of Mr. Parkinson not having kept his appointment, nml that when Mr. Parkinson attempted to explain, ho imitated him, and told him not to stammer his time away any longer; upon which Mr. Parkinson raised his whip, and he, Alien, then struck him, and that Mr. Parkinson afterwards broke his whip across defendant's arm. The Bench were satisfied an unprovoked assault had been made by Allen upon Mr. Parkinson, and it was an assault of an aggravated character. They should fine defendant £5, bat they would allow the fine to include the expenses of the proceedings. CHAHLOTT3 JACKSON V. SAMUKL TUBS KB LONG, AND ANOTHEK. Another case of Assault.—Charlotte Jackson deposed as follows: I am the wife of Henry' Jackson of Riecarton, farmer. I was at home on the 12th March last. About five or six o'clock, p.m., Mrs. Long stopped at my house in a cart, and upon her calling me I went. She pulled my hair. I then went down to Mr. Long, Mrs. Long followed mo. Mr. Lonsr struck me on the siJe of my head. 1 enmo back to my own house and shut the door, locking it. Mrs. Long followed and made a violent attempt to enter. , f John Bray deposed—-I was.on the premises ot Henry Jackson on the 12th of March last, and saw Long" there in the afternoon. I saw him strike Mrs. Jackson. It soemed to me that the blow was on the side of the head. By the Court.—l was standing three or four chains off when I saw tlio blow. f Elizabeth.Hemings being sworn, said —I was at Mrs. Jackson's bu 12th of March laßt. I saw de-

fondants there. I saw Mrs. Long try very hard to get into the house of Mrs. Jacksoa. Mrs. Jackson was inside at the time. .The defendant Long denied striking Mrs. Jackson, and also said she was never inside her house at all. The female defendant also denied pulling Mrs. Jackson's hair. - The Bench considered that there was a great want of evidence to support the charge; that the chief evidence, which was that of the witness Bray, as to the blow being struck must be received with caution, inasmuch as he was some three or four chains off when the alleged blow was given, although he distinctly sworn to having seen it given. They should therefore only fine Long and his wife 10s. for the assault, and costs. JTENRY JACKSON V. SAMUEL TURNER LONG. This was an action to recover damages for illegal impounding. ' It appeared that Long had taken a cow from Jackson's land down to Christchurch to the pound. On his way he met plaintiff and a demand was made of £2, which plaintiff refused to pay. It was paid, however, under protest into the hands of the pound keeper, and Jackson now sought to recover this sum together with damages for the illegal seizure of his property. Judgment was given for plaintiff, for £2, and 10s. for damages, together with costs £1 2s. and expenses of witnesses. JOHNSTON V WATSON. This case was adjourned to this day for the production of further evidence. The point in dispute was on a certain item of account, which was brought forward in evidence last week, as to whether the work done was part of a contract, or day work. After hearing the evidence adduced this day, the Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff had not been under'day- contract for the performance of the particulars, the charge for which was now objected to by defendant; they should therefore record judgment for plaintiff for £20 and costs. CUFF V WEBB. This was an action to recover the amount of £18 ss. 6d. due for timber short landed on account of plaintiff at defendant's quay. Plaintiff produced receipts given by defendant's clerk and also claims against himself from parties to whom he had sold the timber and had givendelivery at the quay. Defendant objected to the receipt produced, and stated that he could' produce his books and show that they did not tally with the.receipts. The Bench considered that defendant had had ample time to prepare his defence, and that he was answerable for the acts of his servants as to the receipts. .They should record judgment against him for the amount claimed, but would grant a rehearing of the case, provided defendant could produce satisfactory evidence in a week's time, that that there were good grounds for so doing.