THE COURTS.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 165, 19 October 1880, Page 3

THE COURTS.

HE SIDENT M'AGISTSATES’ COURT. Blenheim, October 18th. (Before H. Mclntire, Esq., K.M]. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. John Taylor, laborer, was charged with making use of obscene language in the public streets, on Saturday week last. The accused pleaded guilty. In reply to the Court, Mr Fildes, the Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, stated that the occurrence took place about two o’clock in the afternoon in front of the Bank. The man was drunk, and making use of very bad and filthy language indeed. The language said to he made use of was not repeated in Court, but was written on a piece of paper and handed to the Court. The R.M. observed that the accused had pleaded guilty to a very gross offence, for which he would have to pay a fine of £3 and costs or in default go to gaol for a mouth. The following Civil cases were then disposed of : .7. TAIT V. A STRATFORD. This was a claim for LI 14s, an amount for which a summons had been taken out and withdrawn on a promise by defendant to pay in a week. Defendant did not appear, and plaintiff having proved the debt, obtained judgment for the amount claimed, and costs. ,7. FOWLER f\ J. LOWE. This was an action to recover the sum of LIS 12s for the Dire of a horse and dray. Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff proved the debt and asked for judgment with immediate execution. The Resident Magistrate gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs, hut suggested that the ordinary course should be°pursued of issuing execution within 48 hours. I. OIFFORD i\ P. ARCHER. This was a claim for L 52 10s, being the balance of an account for sheep sold and delivered. Mr Sinclair appeared for plaintiff who proved the debt and obtained judgment foi the amount claimed, with costs. There was no appearance on the part of defendant. <7. ir. 1!. MONRO V. .70S. RRADCOCK.

This was an action to recover L 5 damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of defendant trespassing on plaintiffs property at Valleyfield. Mr R ogers appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sinclair for defendant. In opening the case Mr Rogers said Ins client had been greatly annoyed by persons trespassing with dogs and guns on rabbit limiting expeditions on bis run where be had sheep and lambing ewes. He bad cautioned people against trespassing by advertisements, but this appeared to have had hut little, if any, effect. He was therefore determined to make an example. A heavy penalty was not sought for. The damages sought to be recovered were nominal and tile°case was brought simply as a warning. Joseph Mitchell junior, deposed 1 reside at Rcnwick Town and know defendant. On the day in question I was out near Mr Dillon’s place. I know where Mr Monro lives. I know the road leading to Lee field and went along it for some distance. I know a gate a little beyond a house by the roadside opposite to it. 1 went through the gate with a horse and dray and Mr Bradcock in it. I don’t know whose property that was. We went along a road where there wire dray marks, and on the riverbed, where we went rabbit hunting. We went off the river bed after them. We went out for the purpose of rabbit hunting. We left the horse and trap just outside the gate referred to. The horse was tied to the trap. We hunted tire rabbits on foot. M e walked along the riverbed and across a fence. I don’t know whose property that is. We crossed no other fence. From the r'ate to the riverbed is about three-quarters of a mile. We had five dogs with us. We hunted the rabbits on both sides of the fence. Bradcock was with me all the time. By Mr Sinclair We kept on the riverbed until we got to the fence. In examination the witness said they got off the riverbed before they got- to the fence. They did not shoot any rabbits butliunted them with dogs. After getting through the fence and in coming back they made their way towards the Lap. [A rough sketch of the locality was drawn in pencil on a piece of blotting paper and handed to the Court for his Worship's information.] Mr G. H. B. Monro, slicepfarmcr, \ alleyfield, stated that he did not himself see the trespass committed. He described the locality in question, and the position of the river, the road and the gate with respect to

his property. There is no public road from the gate to the river. It is private properly in witness’ occupation. Anyone getting through the fence as described must have gone from witness’ property on to - * Dillon's. Witness never gave defendant permission to go through the gate referred to, hat I have sometimes given permission to certain people to go through it to ge firewood, and my relatives at Bankhousc across the river have liberty to go that way. There is no regular track. \\ lien witness was a member of the Road Board he advised that body to acquire this road, hut they have never acquired it. In reply to Mr Sinclair witness said there had been an old road to the river-bed but it never was a public road. Witness closed it. Witness was informed of the trespass bv Mr Eoskruge on the Monday following the Sunday oh which it was committed. Witness advertised cautioning people not to trespass on his land. Never gave permission to defendant to go rabbiting. AY itness once as a special favor gave a man leave to no rabbiting along the river-bed. Me strongly objects to people, without permission, going on his land with dogs, especially at this season of the year, when the ewes are lambing. ~, ~. . Mr B. Dillon, the owner of the adjoining property, described the locality, and stated that there was no public road where these people were rabbiting. , Mr Sinclair called the defendant, who stated that he was under the impression that the road from the gate to the river was a public one. It was currently believed that it was a public road that Mr Momo had stopped. Witness lias frequently seen carters and others using the road. AY asuniaware until he got the summons that lm had been doing anything wrong. I hey caught no rabbits on Mr Monro ? P r ®P but only when they got to Mr Dillon s. Saw no sheep about, and certainly dul not cause any injury to them. There were five dogs, but all were well in hand. AN itness hea*d there was some dispute between Mr Momo and his relative as to an old road. AA itness understood there was a road a chain wide along the river-bed. Mr Sinclair submitted that Mi Homo had not proved that he owned the land. He had produced no title deeds to show Ins riffiit to the riverbed, and that defendant went on to the land in the exercise of a supposed right, and that the Court s jurisdiction was ousted. As to damage there had been none whatever. The case, moreover, he submitted was a thoroughly trumpery

01 Mr Rogers replied, contending that this was a very important case, aud that it had been amply made out. , _ ... At the close of the case the R.M. said he would reserve his judgment until next Monday.

\V. CLARK V. HITCH OLIVER. This was a claim by Mr NV. Clark, of the Club Hotel, against tho defendant, who belongs to the ship St. Leonards, to recover the sum of £l2 12s for board and lodging, etc., supplied to the brother of defendant, who had guaranteed payment. Mr Sinclair appeared for plaintiff and was about to go on with the case, when Mr Hickson, the Clerk of the Court, said he had received a telegram from Wellington, asking for a postponement. Mr Sinclair said if there was a postponement it ought to be on payment of costs by dC The l Court concurred, and adjourned the case until the first Nov. on payment of costs by defendant. . . Mr Sinclair stated that in this case the defendant’s brother lmd been stopping at the Club Hotel where lie had been taken ill and was very well treated and looked after, and under the circumstances Mr Clark had not pressed for his account which was now owing for a twelvemonth. Tho brother, the defendant in the case, was a midshipman on board the “St. Leonaid, and had promised to pay Mr Clark, but now he (Mr Siuclah) feared this young gentleman would, endeavor to repudiate the obligation. MTTCHELL V. STANTON. This was a claim for L 4 14s for goods sold and delivered and was, on the application of Mr Stenhouse, adjourned fora week. One or two other small debt cases were settled out of Court. WARDEN’S COURT. (Before J. Allen, lssq., A\ avden.) Havelock, Oct. 14. \n application for protection made by Geo. Crichton, for the Gorge Claim, to collect more capital from shareholders, and to procure more machinery, was granted for two months, pending the airival of machinery. . An application foi a water-race by Geo. C McGlashan, manager for the AY akamari'na Hydraulic Sluicing Co., was granted on condition that the local Road Board do not object*. . In the matter of an application for an abandoned tunnel by (j. C. M'Glashau, Manager foi the Hydraulic Sluicing Co. the decision was adjourned till Oct. 2b.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before J. Allen, Esq., R.M.) Havelock, Oct. 14. Preston v. Hill. —Claim £4 for boat hire, Mr McXab appeared for the plaintiff. The defence set up by defendant (who is a representative of the Australian Provident Insurance Society) was that defendant did not fulfil his contract. After hearing the evidence of Mr Hill and Dr Riley, the Bench gave judgment for the amount claimed ami costs 30. Police v. Roach.— Defendant was charged with being drunk in Havelock on the 7th of Oct., and was dismissed with a caution. this being the first offence. Police v. Rlakukk.— Assault. Defendant was charged with beating his wife Sarah Black bee with a stick on Saturday evening, Oct. -nd. Mr McXab for the defence. According to the evidence of Sergt. Hogan, he saw defefendant strike his wife with a stick from w here he the Sergeant then was, viz., in the yard of the jvlieo station. Black bee being then isi his own garden. Constable Dennis Glaehan corroborated the evidence of the Sergeant. For the defence it was urged there was no information laid by the party aggrieved. His worship stated that m consideration of defendant having been locked up from Saturday night till Monday lie would be discharged'by paying costs 6s. It was an offence against society. Mills linos, v. Alfred MAims.—Judgment summons for £6 17s Id; case adjourned from Sept. 80. No appearance of defendant, who was adjudged to pay 10s a month, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. •\u application was made for Charles Morgan, for a permit to sell oOlbs or more of blasting powder, which was granted, William Galloway was charged with stealing one pair of trousers, the value of as. ! Pleaded not guilty. Remand applied for and granted. He was further charged with breaking and entering the premises of Thos. Scott, brewer, of Havelock. Pleaded not guilty. Remand applied for and granted,