RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 124, 28 May 1880, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, BLENHEIM.

Tdesday, May 25tii. (Before H. Mclntire, Esq., R.M.J FURIOUS RIDING. Richard Vercoe was charged by the police with riding a horso at so furious a rate along the Maxwell Road on the 13th instant as to ondnugor the lives and limbs of persons passing by, Mounted Constable Bayley proved the offence, and stated that it took place about 11 o’clock in the day, when a number of people were about. The defendant said as he was ridingalong the road quietly, some chaps threw stones at his horse, which frightened the animal, ami it startod off, and got the mastery of him.

Chas. Taffner stated that on the day in question, he was carting gravel from the Taylor river, and met defendant galloping along, Constable Bayley called to him to pull up, and he did so in a space about twice the length of the Court-house, Defendant was lined £2 and costs 17s. HORSES AT LARGE. William James, butcher, pleaded guilty to a charge preferred against him of leaving his horse and cart in the street without any body to look after it, and was fined in the minimum penalty of 10s and costs. Defendant said he had only just come out to the Colony and was unaware of the law. The R.M. said this was unf >rtunate, but there was certainly no piece of legislation which persons were bettor acquainted with here than this, John Williams, carpenter, High Street, was charged with allowing his horse to stray in Fearon Street without anyone to look after it. Defendant did not appear. Constable Rogers proved the offenco, and the Court fined defendant 53 and costs. The following civil business was disposed of: BARCLAY V. WYATT. Thi3 was an action to recover the sum of £1 ■ on account rendered for board, lodging, etc. Defendant did not appear. Mr Sinclair appeared for plaintiff, who p-o >■(! debt, and obtained judgment for the •.mount claimed and costs. EAIILL V. VEBIiV. This was' a claim for £l4 15s, for horse hire, etc., and was, on the application of Mr Rogers, with the consent of both parties, adjourned to Monday next, GIRLING V. IIEWETT. This was a judgment summons for £8 8s 4d. The defendant it was stated is at Masterton, and has taken uo notice of the .summons. Mr Girling said he would take £1 a month. Mr M‘Nab referred the Court to a recent decision of the District Court Judge at Nelson, that defendant’s expenses in these cases ought to be paid by plaintiff. The- R.M. said he would look into the matter before giving a decision. y, BEAMSLKY V. O'SULLIVAN. In this case, which was heard a month ago and judgment given for defendant, a re-hearing had been granted which was Bet down for to-day. It may be remembered that it was an action to recover the sum of £49 on a promissory note, the defence being that it was a gambling transaction. Mr McNab appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sinclair for defendant. When the case was called on, Mr MoNab Mid a settlement had been arrived at

between the parties, defendant making a money payment to plaintiff, and he asked to withdraw the case. He would also state that all imputations were withdrawn. In connexion with the case there was a matter to which he wished to direct the attention of the Court. There had been a species of newspaper interference with the case of which he had to complain. It was stated in the Express of the previous day that he had summoned Mr Cundy. This was not true. He had not done so. Mr Cundy was not summoned, but that statement being made in the paper, coupled with the fact of Mr Cundy not being here _ might have seriously prejudiced the plaintiff. He did not object to newspapers giving their readers the benefit of all the information they could, provided that information was true, but he did object to statements which were not only not true but tended to seriously prejudice a case pending in Court going forth to the public. He hoped the Court would take notice of tho matter. The Resident Magistrate said ho had no control over the Press.

Mr McNab said the Resident Magistrate had control over his own Court. Mr Hickson, Bench Clerk, said the information was not supplied from the Court. Mr Sinclair said he did not supply the information.

The Resident Magistrate said the newspaper must apparently have drawn on its imagination for its facts. The representative of tho Express was understood to say that tho information was supplied from a source supposed to be reliable. The matter then dropped and the Court adjourned. The terms on which the case was settled were, the promissory note to be given up ; £6O cash to be paid to plaintiff, £9 to be taken out of Court by plaintiff, and all imputations withdrawn by the defendant.