RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 348, 6 November 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

' Noyembeh (Before" H. W.: Robinson, Esq. E, M., and- L. /W..Busch, Esq., "J.P.) : Inspector, of Nuisances v.James Smith. —The charge in this case was laid under the Municipal Bye-laves. The Inspector deposed that the back premises where defendant lived were in fcr beastly state. There were accumulations of broken glass; boots, and old rotten cloth, altogether about 2 cwt. By the Bench': la that the stuff" that

stinks'? • y~. Witness.: ;It helpsj vyour Worship.— The stagnant water lies in a puddle close to .the back door. "

: -The defendant urged that he had cut a drain, and tried to keep it open, costing him £3 to £4. That, as the fall was so bad, he was obliged to fill it in, and he had done so since he was warned by the Inspector. For some time past all the slops had. to3e carried into Tay-street. That the Tay-street drains were what produced the-stench. His own place was dry. Sub-Inspector M'Cluskey here asked to be allowed to make a statement as to the filthy state of the town, which, considering the near approach of the hot weather, rendered preventive steps necessary. /Fined 10s., and costs ss. 6d. The Bench- informed the defendant that .he was liable to a penalty of £5, and 10s. per diem for each day the nuisance existed.

Inspector of Nuisances v. P."Law. For allowing two horses to stray in-Earn-street. .Fihed'lOs., and costs ss. 6d.

Inspector of Nuisances v. John Tait.— This was a charge also laid under the byelaws. . It appeared that the defendant, having been warned about offensive accumulations upon his premises, hkd partially cleared them off his ground a few yards to the back. Accordingly he was complained of. for depositing rubbish in the Municipality-other than were was appointed by the Council. This was not a difficult thing to do, as the Council , had appointed no place ;at all, and, as the Bench remarked, "It was not to be expected people, should carry nuisances about with them in their hands." The rubbish complained of was as before, old boots, broken glass",.old iron, burnt .bones, .pieces of old cloth, —a pretty good handful. Defendant thought he had complied with the notice :by clearing his own premises: ; Fined 103. and costs ss, 6d.

Inspector of Nuisances v. John Bull.— For allowing two horses to stray in Earnstreet. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Inspector deposed to seeing the horses opposite the school, and having previously cautioned defendant.

Defendant: How did you know [they was my horses ? -Witness: I knew they was. Defendant: Don't you think they might have been the Gamp horses ? . Witness : There is as much difference between the Camp horses and yours as between the sun and the moon.

: Defendant: What were their brands ? Witness : They had been rolling.in the mud. Pne was a cob, and the other a bay, with white hairs on its neck or shoulder. .

" Defendant submitted they were not in Earn-street, and gave his horses an excellent character for four years as being most inoffensive. Fined 10s., and ss. 6d, costs. '

Morrison and Langmaak v. Manson.Debt. Judgment for amount claimed, and 10s. expenses.of service. >' Nolan y. Joseph Packman.—-Complain-ant submitted, that horses had" broken into his garden and eaten his strawberries. Ho got the horses, and secured them in the Camp* ,He recognised then, as PackOman's. The fence was broken in two places, and he claimed £2 damages. In ! cross-examination he said the horses were there before 7 a.m. Could not say how. long. _ Did not know that they went more :than six yards from where he saw them. Admitted .defendant made a pretence to ,mend the fence. He put somesods in as ; .if they were thrown, in. Defendant : Are you sure the gap was up in the morning. 7 < ' J:- r " Complainant: f" don't understand you. I don't know what you mean by the gap : being up. - Defendant: What was the £2 damage done P . Was .their Is. damage done ? Complainant: I have said what it was. Don t know how'many strawberries were eaten.

Defendant . admitted .the Horses havi°g got out of the yard that morning thoy had not been away twenty minutes out ot his sight. They were in hand to go to wort." Judgment 205., Land'9s, costs. Poppleton -v. Ajtken.—-This was a case of assault, which may lie summarised thus —Complainant was killing-pigs in Chapman'sstable. A Chinaman entered, and the' two. began to quarrel about' the offal. They r rolled over, and Poppleton had the Chinaman by the throat. A witness of. the .scene; called to Aitken, who pulled-off Poppleton, .who thereupon Began to challenge "Aitken as to his action. Aitken quickly- o replied "If he (Poppleton) put up his maulys (molars? marbles?) he would see." Poppleton knocked him down, and was proceeding to hit him again, when he grasped a shovel. One witness, a most intelligent and graphically descriptive Chinaman, said Aitken grasped the shovel to steady his legs, which were shaky. Another witness, E. T. George, junior, said to defend himself. Both witnesses agreed Aitken did not Btrike Poppleton, but that Poppleton came oq. to theyihovel. George's evidence went to shvw complainant was drunk—pretty well on. There was some remarkable evidence given. Complainant said " his head bled fearful from the cut, and hi 9 nose bled for' two -or three days." The Court was satisfied that Mr. Aitken interfered at the first from a generous motive, still he did not go the right way about it when he challenged Poppleton to fight. Fined 20s. and costs.