RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HAVELOCK.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 101, 9 March 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HAVELOCK.

Thursday, March 4th. (Before Job.i Allen, Esq., R.M., and W. E. Dive, Esq., J.P.) ASSAULT—SYMONS V. CORKIIILL AND BOYD. Frederick Symons, the complainant, who is a son of Mr Win. Symons, Kaituna, stated that he was on the road near his father’s house at 8 p.m., on Saturday, February 28, when defendants came up to him, and Cork* hill caught hold of him and threw him down, ami Boyd spat on him. They then asked him where he was going, and threatened to kick him. Alex. Robertson and Robert Brown were present, and sold defendants to leave Symons alone. Complainant in no way annoyed the defendants or provoked the attack. Alex. Robertson corroborated the evidence of complainant. The defendants, who had nothing to say in their defence, were each fined 10s and 10s costs, or one week’s imprisonment. The fines were paid. In giving judgment the R.M. administered a well-merited rebuke to defendants, and gave them distinctly to understand that a repetition of the offence would be dealt with much more severely. They had already rendered themselves liable to a fine of £lO or two months imprisonment.

HUGHES V. JOHANSEN. This was a claim for £l2 ss, for goods supplied by plaintiff in 1572. Mr McNab, for the defence stated that by Statute of Limitations plaintiff would be non-suited, but should be able to get a verdict on the merits of the case.

John Hughes deposed that he is a settler, residing at Pelorus. Defendant gave him a promissory note (produced) payable on demand. Mr McNab raised an objection to the note not being properly stamped and also insisted that the defendant’s signature should be proved. Plaintiff said he saw defendant sign the document. The substantial defence was that another person, and not defendant, ought to have been sued. Defendant was non-suited, and ordered to pay costs, £2 9s. A fresh summons is to be taken out in another name. Johansen is at present employed working at the new bridge over the Wakamarina river at Canvass Town.

HAVELOCK LICENSING COURT. Thursday, March 4. (Before J. Allen, W. E. Dive, and Arthur Hyde, Esqs., Commissioners.) Ay adjourned application was heard for a license for Mr Dickson’s Accommodation House at Kaituna in the neighborhood of Neumann’s sawmill. An objection was put in by the Clerk of the Court, received at 10 a.in. that day. Mr McNab (who appeared for John Muir Dickson, the applicant), said this objection ought to have been lodged seven clear days previously and then it could have been met. The Bench retired to consider the objection raised, and decided to hear the case. Mr McNab remarked that the police had taised no objection to the application. John Muir Dickson stated that his house was situated about 15 miles from Blenheim and 11 from Havelock, the nearest licensed house to Havelock being that at the river Wairau, a distance of six miles. At the last annual meeting when he applied for a license there were no formal objections raised to his application. The Court further adjourned the hearing of the application until March 18th.

WAIAU RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COUBT. (From a Correspondent.) Saturday, March 6. BREACH OF THE SHEEP ACT. At the Magistrates’ Court to-day Messrs McArthur Bros., of St. James station, were charged on three informations with negligentfy permitting nine scabby sheep to stray on land not in their occupation in January last. Mr Joynt, of Christchurch, appeared for the Crown, and Mr Stringer for the defendants. The sheep were proved to be Horsley Downs bred sheep, a portion of a mob of five thousand purchased by defendants in IS7B, and had strayed on to Mcßae’s and Ed war Jones’ Runs, which are clean. They were apparently on their way back to the Downs. Defendants were fined £SO on each information, £l5O in all, and costs. Messrs Jones and Kent, of Ilopefield station, were charged on two informations with having negligently permitted nine scabby sheep to stray on land not in their lawful occupation in January last. Mr Joynt appeared for the Crown, and Mr George Harper for defendants. The sheep were the same lot as those for which McArthur Bros, were fined, but as they with others had been running at Hope field by the consent of Jones and Kent, Mr Whitefoord, R.M., held that they were responsible for the sheeps’ safe keeping. He quoted sections 47 and 51 of the Sheep Act, which provide remedies for straying scabby sheep, and imposed a fine of £5 on each information, £lO in all. There was a large gathering of squatters and others at • the Court-house to hear the cases, which i excited a good deal of local interest.