RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 50, 21 June 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before bis Worship the Mayor, f.nd H. M'Neil. Esq. J.P.] * Tuesday, June 17, 1879. DBUNK AND DieOBDBBu?. John Shvubb, a stranger m .the town, was charged by Constable Giilespie -wita being (.'•runt and disorderly on the 16th. . Prisoner admitted the offence, but pleaded that it was the first time of his being m trouble. Fined ten shillings, m default forty-eight hours' imprisonment. WIZBVL DAM AOB. ■** . The same prisoner war then - charged 'tj James Carroll, of the Clarendon Hctsl, viaife wilfully, damaging a window to the extern; o? fchLty shillings. - '•■ >? ; ■■■•■'• Accused stated that be was rdrunik, 'and knew nothing about it. Ordered to pay thirty shilling*, m default one week's imprisonment with bard labor. DBttNK AND DISOEDERLY. Peter Gray, was charged with the above offence on the IGth. . ; . • ou»table Q-'llespie gave evidence of the offence, and called John Batchelar who supported it. Jiined twenty shillings, m default forty eigut hou'V imprisonment. RESISTING l'Hfi POLIOI. The same prisoner wa» tiwn charged with resisting the police m tiie execution of their duty. Constable Gilletpie' deposed that the conduct of the accused was the wov»t he haJ ever met with, he. had t.-ieii tobite, kick, and used .'angu&°e -wliich was uomethinj; fea ml. . George UcCa. thy also deposed to both his boisterous conduct and disgraceful language. jl'U» Bench consided the offeneo prove.!, and inflicted the full penalty of-iSIO, m default two mouths' imprisonment wit'n hard labor m Wanganui Gaol. ' „, ; FALSE PRETENCES. C'haVlea Hen/y Pei'ciyai lodged an information against (lie same .pi'isonei? of haying obtained on Lhe 16tii one overcoat rallied at £2, by fraudulent and false p efcemes. Informant testified that, on Monday p.'iione.* entered his drapery shop and seeing a coat iianging up at the doo?.*, pat it on and asked .the price. Upon |be<ng toli?, he taid.fc'.iat he had to d.'ew some money "com My. ".**-.'■■ fimn and he would go and get it and x-ebu>n and pay for the coat, and a small account for which he wns indebted. Knowing toe accused to have been m the employ of M \ Nathan, wilness supposeJ|'it wa& correct, and he was allowed to depart, bnt it was upon the strict understanding that he' would d»*aw the *no ey owing to him and return m a few -n agents, otherwise he uevfcaioly should not have had the coat. Joseph Charles Nathan deposed that the representations made by prisoner, oil Monday that he then had money to draw f.om witness were not true. He had been paid ; on. Satu. Jay night every-pew-iy. •wuicli-Jia^. been co uing to him. -'.."..■--. The Chairman stated (hat the Bench was detsv'l- uied to protect storekeepers from toe des'gns of uiuc-.'tipulous persona, and 0 ;ie'¥(l p j'sotie:* (p be confined for •■.]», ee months, that ocitence to be emulative upon the preceding one. THUHSDiT, Jams 19, 1879. [Before E-joe i Wsui. E*q., R.M.] 88-BACH OF THH TEt&O-.TO.Ui£CBICJAI, STTitYBY ACT 1869. Tap : t*.». was covap'a'u«c : pgaiait .by F.-eJe-rick Get, a s rro-o-- >n tiie eavp'ov.xiftjt of fehe Gor« vnaeni, w : th a b/av-ii i of tie Tr'gonome f . -ca ISu *vey Act. ? 869, by o : jstmefci'ig .iiitn m pai'or^iajce of 'I* is coaiAict. •M.\ Sl.'ite appem.ed fo»* \ae p/osecutior, ant 7 stated, the cif.:i ; >c under which proceedings were Uike.i. He said tire ■ !t?> "e'iehfc did not p e%s I'o.aliesvy pe.telty, but jmtuwlr to act fc.-. a that tiie Government officmU could not be obsi.-ucted with impuii't.T. The. defendant waa un/epre:en':ed by - • eov.wsel. ■* Fec : i>lck Gi'let disposed,; I am a survevo-. I "e.ne.nbev Tuesday, tae 3rd of June, on wa'cli. day I was engaged m com- I p l .ei' | tg the sii.-vey of the Apraagi Block: 1 was n.ider a cokitvact with the Goveiunient and had a copy of that contact with me. I saw fie defendant tlmt day at he? house. She ef-'aedi to let the 'surveyors proceed with t;ie work, and when the cliai> wa-; bii'efched out she gathered it upr and ; took possession of it. Seeing t'nat she was determined to oJsfc act the sitwey I \reut off the ground. 1 nad two men— Ruudock and Rose with. viB — and' fciey were also hince^eit. ' .... • , To Defendant : You asked me when you pa.ne by wiiose authority I was the^e. I did not soy U'at My. ifcDojisld had seait me. Yon saiti so, but. I distinctly strted such was n jt the case, but that the _Gove/awnent bad sent me. It was before you took . the chain ti'i't I said I was a. Goveinmept' I surveyor.. You t'id not ask trie yrhf-a '^'i told I was a Guvarnihtjiit surveyoi*, .-'\v:iiyM hod not given formal notice to tlie-wbrk. v ' John Ea:klock disposed : On^ the T 3rd o c June 'I was as'risfcing 41;*. GillefcN iri iurvey- ' ijig the Aor.tugi Block. 1 reineihbe • seeing the defendant and heard Mr, GHlet teli her that lie was their for the Goverjiment. It was before westretebed the chain that, defendant was informeil we were working for the Gorerninent— l told her fo/ Mr. GUlefc. ■'■■■-.'...- - •;• '; *■: v : ':,■•■ To Defendant :— You asked me by what authority I surveyed ihe land, but I didf not say that I came from MX McDonald. You said* something: more about Mr.. MoDonnlcl, but that was on a previous day, wheriyou told me. to go to that geiitleman and tell him you had obstructed the siu«vey. You did tell me- there was a dispute about the land, You did ask why the Government had not sent a notice that the survey was about to be commenced. ' ; Defendant (through Mr Baker) admitfed ■having been guilty of . the obstruction;' but said ?he did so because the dispute about thelnnd had not been yet settled , and did not know by whnt authority they were affIm? At the late sitting of the Lands Court it had been decided that she and her sister had a risht over the whole block, and the court finished up with the decision that no. surveys should be mate, and if any. dealings " had to be taken with the land she, and her sister shouW "be. consulted. . Sho thought •as One of the owners to the land, that she wi3" perfectly justiftel m stopping; the work.; > Thp\defenrl'inf «r7>liecl to crtl.l ;Ho*ni i Meiharia to gire>viSence a» to, her title- to, tiie i block, bat tiie Bench infbnaid U«r tliat np

rratf-e- whether she ' had the best possible e'gat or not to* surveyow of the G-overn-ment, when due notice iiadbeen given, we^e at perfect liberty to enter npon the land for the purposes of Biirvey. That mi by the Act of 1868, which applied to Pakeas well as Maoris. Ha-ia Pefca the sister of the defendant wr.s cai&d, but the wr'toess refused to give evidence, wishing for an anjournmeat. This of course was not granted. s"he was consequently ordered to, B tend back. Kat*r:a'na examined : I wss present w'ien tiie second day when, when . !ne «u?reyo;i. were obsi.'Ucted, and I he? d Tanita a;k Mr. Q-i'.lstt why he did not send notice before band that b* was going, to •u.'Vey, and he tuid ne did r.ot Lnow. He said on the day tii&t t!)o cbv'n was taken that he cam* on behalf oi. tbe Q-overnaient. That was a""f.ei* the chain was away. 'I' sew Mr. Grillett's assistant there and he said f.fter the chain had been taken that they belonged to the GroTercir.int. 1 can sweor postiTeiv Ibat it was afte:? *k.c clißin was taken. . IJ was there tbe whole time. Ift?. McDon^d tm not present. Myself, .Tapita, t\id Ha-oa Feka were present. I was on tae Terandah of the house, and distinctly 'bea:;'(< all taat wa* «aid. Bichard Euckvidge called and BV7om :— -I was not p "esenc when fciie clia.in was taien oil the S.c. of -J'^ne. 'Ufais .concluded n'l the eridenc» and tin Bench stated that it was tbe opinion of tj* Court tbnt a not'ea had been given by Mr.' Gillet. Ie w?8 just possible, howeve:', t'.'.at the defendant did cot understand its nal«'e and. consequently a heavy fine would not inflicledt. -The Ifagi&tcate saicl t'xat ,')• tbougbt ,it would ba. better, that i.i sucli caseß .written notice' shorid be girea, oj which' step' much mi&naderat&hdihg ixlw'it le avoided. The defendant would be fined m the mitigated penalty of £2, with £5 2s. costs. The defendant at first stated that she wouTd nut pay the mount, but upon" being admonished by the Bench as to trie sei'ious ness of disobeying the order, gave notice ofappeal. Tioae was allowed until next Monday for the payment of tlie amount. V; r • CiTIIi CASESS. " Edward Mpv!»h~v. John Aitken— claim £32 14s. for goods supplied to a- pe«on named Ju"rne3 Q-a.-dihei*, upon authority, of defendant. My. Sta ; .te appea.edfor plaintiff; a-'d Mr. Maclean for the defendaat. T.?e case occupied nearly the whole., of the afie. noon, the plaintiff b.ei>?g subjected to a lengtby and severe, eross-exaari jaC&on, r Adjourned ua';fl. next Courfc day.