MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 133, 7 June 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before 11. E. Coims, and J. Sthoks, Esqs., J.J.P.] TICKBXLESS DoOS. Mrs Rogers was charged with having a dog in her possession which had no ticket. Defendant stated that the dog was not hers bufc the property of Mr Wix, although ifc had' been with her for fcweive months. When the police spoke to her about it she wanted them to kill it, as she did not think the law compelled her to destroy other people's property. Fined 10s, and costs 9s. James Blanche was charged with having a dog on his pretnises for which a ticket had not been taken out. Defendant pleaded that the dog was not his, thafc ifc was only a little one not worth talking about, that its "actual residence " was Mrs Hamilton's, and lastly that it was not "of age," that is, three months old. As he was able to establish this latter plea the case was dismissed. Stallard v. Elkington. Action to recover 7s for "refreshment and schnapps," and M 14s 9d for " board and lodging and refreshment." Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton Adams for the defendant. William Stallard, sworn, stated that defendant stayed at the Miners' Arms for two days and nights, during which time he was supplied with the refreshments charged for. over j£4 being for drinks, as he was shouting all round, and would have spent much more if witness had allowed him. Cross-examined: The greater amount supplied was spirituous liquors. When defendant was intoxicated I refused to supply him. This was the whole of the evidence, and Mr Adams for the defence argued tbat defendant had evidently been on the spree, and liquoring up the whole time. Under the " Tippling Act " it was impossible to recover for spirituous liquors if supplied in quantities of a less value than £1 at a time. Defendant was not a bona fide lodger, but was at the time living in town. Judgment; for £1 2s and costs. Assault. Henry Warren was charged by Constantino JUalliday with unlawfully assaulting and beatmg him. Mr Fell appeared for the complainant.

Mr Pitt, for the defendant, applied for an adjournment, on the ground that Mr Warren was compelled tobe absent afc Motueka to take delivery of kome cattle. ;Mr Fellobjectbd to the adjournment. He was of opinion that a. s summons from the Court was of fer greater importance than that Mr Warren should go away to buy a cow. Mr Pitt would place himself in the hands of the Court. He had stated the circumstances, and if the Bench decided to go on with the case, he was prepared to watch it j for his client. - Adjournment granted until next Wednesday. Main t. Mbrcbr.— Mbrcer v. Main. This was a cross action, Main charging Mercer with ill behaviour in the service of his master, and Mercer retaliating by accusing Main of unlawfully assaulting and beating him. Mr Pitt appeared for Maiu, and Mr Fell for Mercer. Frederick Main : lama hairdresser, and Mercer is my apprentice. The indentures are dated October, 1874, and he is bound fco me for five years. The lad has progressed very well in his trade, but he has been very disobedient and saucy. On Saturday last he was in a particularly sullen mood, which ha showed i^ various ways, and was very rude to my ivife, and , contradicted me when I spokatoftfrn. _ then boxed his ears. He was disobedient to me in many ways, and was trying to annoy me all the morning. •Occasionally if I remonstrate with him quietly ,he gets sulky, and at other times if I speak sharply ha is saucy. Sometimes he behaves well. Cross-examined : I never knocked him down, or gave him a black eye, or made his nose bleed, or kicked him. I hay« boxed his ears twice before for impudence and laziness. This was the case for Main. Mr Fell said things had coma to such a pass that it was quite impossible for the boy fo work with Main any longer, and he hoped the Bench would sanction the cancellation of the indentures. Main was a man of a violent temper, and had struck the boy cruelly. Frederick Mercer : I am fifteen years of age. I haye been with Main for nearly thrae years. Four times I have complained to my parents of his treatment of me. Once he struck me ,for accidentally breaking a horse for sawing wood on, and once he kicked me for playing marbles before 8 o'clock. On Saturday he boxed my ears, and knocked me against a case. I said I would tell father, when he swore at me, and struck me with his closed fist, after which he struck me again and made my nose bleed. Mrs Mercer : When the boy came home on Saturday he was enough to frighten anyone, his eye was so swelled and he was so heart broken. He has complained before of Main's treatment of him. Mr Mercer, the boy's father, corroborated the above evidence. This closed Mercer's case, and as rebutting evidence Mr Pitt called Jossph Newport, who said he had seen Mercer on Saturday when he told him that Main had struck him. He was sobbing and seemed in trouble. He saw no signs'of bruises or blood on him. Charles M'Gee : I was in Main's shop on Saturdsy. I saw Mercer there. His nose was not bleeding, and I saw no marks on him. Ha appeared to me to be out of temper. Emily Goodman: I am living at Mr Main's. On Saturday Mercer came to me for some dusters, I saw nothing the matter with him but that he looked very sulky. Frederick Main : I distinctly deny having done anything but bor his ears. This being the whole of the evidence, counsel addressed the Bench, who, after a few minutes consultation, stated that they were of opinion that there had been a certain amount of impudence on the boy's part, which merited some mild punishment, as the master must have control over his apprentices. The assault committed, however, was more severe than the circumstances warranted, and of this the Bench was compelled to take some notice. They thought that it was extremely unlikely that the two would get on together again, and therefore recommended the cancellation of the indendtures if the counsel on each side could agree as to the terms, and in order to give them time to do this they would adjourn for a few minutes. On the Court resuming, it was stated that the two parties were totally unable to agree, and judgment was therefore given to the effect that the boy should return to his master, who was fined £1 and costs for the assault.