Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 679, 11 May 1859, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Lyttelton—Monday, May 9. . ' (Before the Resident Magistrate.) Christina Swanson was fined 40s. for drunkenness, or, in default of payment, four days imprisonment, this being a second conviction within three months. JOHN WATSON V-KOBtrARTTA (NATIVES). This was an action by the plaintiff for the recovery af £100 damages from the defendant, in consequence of an alleged adulterous connexion with plaintiff's wife Lavinia. Each party appeared in propria, persona, amid a considerable gathering of natives, the friends of both. . The Rev. Mr. Aldred was sworn interpreter. Plaintiff and defendant each chose their own. assessor. . ■.':■.-■ The plaintiff said the sin his wife had committed with defendant was not new; that on being caught by some of the natives, Koruarua confessed ; a little after his wife confessed, whom he then took before the elders of the tribe, that they might hear her confession before he lodged his complaint. (Plaintiff here produced their certificate of marriage-, wlLU3li*-fcobli.,placa_iii- June, 1854.) Horn" Wetere said he knew both parties; that he was a witness to what took place on the Friday before the summons was sent out. On returning from work he and some other natives found Koruarua and Lavinia near Raupaki, when the former ran to the river and the latter to the village. Witness then taxed Koruarua with the crime, which he admitted. Defendant Koruarua, who as a heathen could not be sworn, was cautioned to tell the truth. He then, confessed, stating that he had received encouragement from the woman. Lavinia also admitted her &uilt and admitted further that her husband was good to her. The Native assessors decided in favour of the plaintiff, and after some consideration as to the means of the defendant, awarded damages £23, which judgment was acquiesced in by his worshipBEGIN A V COSIEB. This was a direct charge of supplying spirituous or mixed liquors to Maoris contrary to law. The sub-Inspector of Police, on his oath, said that on the 30th ulto. he saw .several Maoris standingabout the bar of the Robin Hood Hotel. Witness stated very distinctly that he saw a Maori called Henry take up a glass from the counter containingliquor. At the same time defendant was in such a position on the other side of the counter that there was no doubt he had served the Maori. Witness then went straight up to the Maori, and took the glass from his hand as he was returning it to the counter. Witness found, on tasting, what remained at,the bottom to be neat brandy. There were other Maoris there half intoxicated. Witness then told defendant he should summons him. The Maori Henry then gave evidence that defendant had served him with the brandy, for which 6d. was paid. Witness confessed he knew it wascontrary to law. The evidence of last witness was confirmed by another Maori. Defendant denied the charge, and called two witnesses whose evidence was only negative. They were not. present at the time informant saw the brandy given to the native. Convicted. Fined £10 and costs. ■.-■;.. A charge of assault and battery, in pursuance of a conspiracy to raise wagesj-.was. withdrawn. In some other cases there was no appearance of either party. . .

CHRiSTcmjKCH-—Tuesday, April 3. (Before J. Brittan, Esq., J.P.) Samuel Turner Long was fined ss. for drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Wednesday, May 4. Richard Taylor was fined 255. for allowing 5 horses to be at large within the town. Thomas Hemming was fined 10s. for lighting a heap of shavings adjoining Cashel and Colombo streets, in the town, so as to damage the neighbouring buildings. John Ladbrooke was also fined ss. for allowing pigs to stray within the town. BREACH OF SHEEP ORDINANCE. BEGIN A V. OWEN. Mr. Edwards appeared to answer the charge of having 3000 sheep infected with scab in his possession. Mr. Adams, the Inspector, stated that he visited Mr. Owen's station, on the Waimakaviri, on the 26th ultimo, and there he found about 200 sheep in the yard, which, a3 defendant admitted, had been brought in from the main fioclc that morning. He only found one scabby sheep, and in his opinion the disease was about a fortnight or three weeks old. Defendant admitted the charge, and stated that it was no fault of his that his 'flock, had become diseased, and that diseased sheep,had strayed into his flock from others that were travelling down, and had been stopped on account of the disease breaking out among them.Convicted, and fined £100, the penalty to be re*

litted if a clean certificate be produced by the,l2th ly of October^ next. ;:",*- rM v ; '■■ ASSAULT/ DARKE3 V. JOSEPH WARD, ROBERT WOOD AND ANN WOOD. The defendants were charged ;vith coming to ■osecutor's house on Monday evening, and assaul:ig both himself and his wife, and otherwise conicted themselves in 'a very disorderly manner. It appears that prosecutor had summoned defennt Robert Wood for an amount of 255. for rent, id that Ward came to settle the debt on the ening referred to on behalf of his brother-in-law, rood; while there, his sister Ann Wood came \ and said it was an unjust : debt, and Id her brother not to pay it, and on this ards passed, and it was then that procutor charged Joseph Ward with tearing off the ifcton from his (pi'oseeutor's) waistcoat and 'vantg to.light him, and.also charged Ann Wood twith an assault upon his wife, and.obscene lan^uage^ -Land also with breaking some glass, the subject of yanother charge. ; ; . | George Deuley gave evidence as to • being at jDarke's house on the evening in question, and seeling defendants Ward and Ann Wood there. Witfncss heard -a, great deal of abusive language pass fbetween the parties, but saw no personal violence. \ Win; Read stated that lie went in with Ward, fwhen defendant Ward went to settle the account, r and that Ann Wood came in and said it was an unE just claim, and told her brother not to settle it, jfand that prosecutor got up and took the poker and jfshoved them towards the door, but he saw no perfsoual violence, or any. assault on the part of defenIdants, ■'■■-■ I Defendant Ward stated that he merely went to ! settle the claim between his brother-in-law and i Darkes, and denied even attempting to fight pro- : .. , ■ Defendant Ann Wood stated that Darkes used threatening language towards her, and that she had never interferred with W. Darkes. And the other, defendant denied having ever been out of his own garden. ' •■-. ' The Court considered the evidence was too conflicting to warrant a conviction, they should therefore dismiss the case. " i ' , ' . The next case was the claim.for 255. rent, alluded to in the former, proceedings. After hearing the evidence in this case, and after

"I defendant; admitting that he had occupied apart- , I ments of Plaintiff, and had paid him already a' cer- |! tain sum, but whether for rent or for other ex- °| ])ences, such Us board; <fee., he did not know, t *i judgment was recorded for plaintiff, for the am ount K% claimed, 255. and costs 15s. The other claim for *•*) damages was also settled by the' Court, at'the wish '£ of the parties themselves, amounting to 15s. i\ Thuksday, sth Mat, 1859. $ (Before John Ham, Esq.- R.M,) f t Walter Btieboavs v Geoege Leslie Lee. \ This was an action in which Burrows, -the plainly tiff, sought to recover the sum of £19 18s. 3d. a [ \ balance of account due for wages. Defendant adfy mitted the account to be correct, but objected to H pay, as plaintiff had lost a pair of young bullocks belonging to him, through gross negligence, and he had' retained* this balance until plaintiff had found or accounted for the bullocks, i In crdss examination, it was elicted that plain- ; tiff had lost these bullocks at the Weka Creek, and < ! according to'his own,showing had not spent a rea- • |: sonable time in looking for them, though defendant i '- had afforded him every opportunity of doing so. j.; | Plaintiff also brought forward a witness to prove 1 fy that he had' used all proper care in looking after the *^ bullocks; this evidence was however of so worthless * !* a nature, involving even a deliberate falsehood, that ] f the Couit stated^ that they should attach no weight 4tt whatever to it. *■>■■■ :.' - ■ ■'■ ;■■. : ;:

The Court then offered plaintiff - another opportunity of looking for these bullock?., of which |lie might avail.himself, and then fairly he enI titled to his -vyages. Plaintiff refused, however, I and the Court decided to abate a portion of plainI tiff's wages, in order to compensate .defendant for | the damage he had sustained through the gross I neglect of his servant. .Judgment was then given I for plaintiff for £14 18s. 3d., and plaintiff to pay I costs. .' ■„... I Catoe v. Theleaven. Thiswas an action for the Isumof £3 10s., said to be due for the keep of a I horse in the paddocks at plaintiff's farm. I 'Defendant; objected to pay on the ground that I the horse was not his, and that he had returned it I to Mr. Cator's hands, as unsound, the horse having I proved: so after a verbal warrant of his soundness jihad been given by,plaintiff. '■■'.'. .•:•• ft It appeared that attention had been drawn at Bthe time of purchase to a puffing in one of the ifetlocks of the horse ;• however, after some conver-

'sation on this between plaintiff and defendant, the latter took the'horse away. The horse was subse quently returned to plaintiff, and plaintiff then told defendant he should charge him for the keep of the horse it he left it. The Court considered that on the evidence before them as to the ownership of the horse and the natuue of the' transaction, the claim plaintiff urged was good, and therefore they should give judgment for the amount' claimed, and costs. ■■: ' Mi. Johnston, who appeared for defendant, requested to have the usual time for payment allowed, as his* client intended to appeal to the Supreme Court, to stay payment of the amount, until proceedings were taken in that Court with reference to the validity of the warrant, on which he urged the'horse had been sold. The Court stated that 48 hours would be allowed for payment. . • ' :