RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.— HAWERA.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 175, 13 December 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.— HAWERA.

Saturday, 9th December, 1876. (Before Major Turner, 8.M., and Major. Glieeord, Esqs., J.P.’s) The first three cases called on for hearing consisted of two charges preferred by the police against W. Hickmate and P. Conway, for drunkenness. The defendants were mulcted in the usual fine, with the customary alternative of 48 hours’ imprisoument. Fines paid. In a claim for £l9 ss, G-..Helliar against \V. Alzdorf, a verdict by default was given for the amount, and costs (19s). J. S, Larkham v. 11. Jupp was a claim in which plaintiff sought to recover £7 16s for the grazing of a horse for 56 consecutive weeks, and also for damage done to a hut erected on plaintiff’s property. The evidence in the case was most contradictory, some witnesses swearing that the horse had been continually running on plaintiff’s land, and others stating that fluring part of the period for which grazing fjes were claimed,' the horse had been running on another person’s land. The case was adjourned to next Court day. The case of Bulbitz v. Bedding was then entered into. The charge against the defendant was one of horse-stealing, in the abduction of one grey gelding (value

£3) the goods and chattels of plaintiff, contrary lo the form of Statute, &c., &c. Mr Adams appeared for defendant. Sub-Inspector Northcroft, who appeared on behalf of the Crown, applied that the case bo adjourned, in order that ho might bo enabled to bring up two native witnesses, whose attendance he was at present unable to obtain.

The defendant’s solicitor objected to an adjournment, on the plea that nine days had elapsed since the alleged offence had taken -place, and that during that period there was ample time for the Crown to have sought out and subpoenaed the Maoris in question. In reply, Sub-Inspector.; Northcroft pointed out the difficulties in obtaining the attendance of the natives living on the other side of the Waingongoro at Court, hut he hoped that he would be able to do this by next Court day. The case was adjourned to nest Court day, the Magistrates observing that new-comcrs ought to be warned that it is not advisable for them to cross the Waingongoro River for the purpose of pig-hunting, or indeed on any other pretence, on Maori land other than with the object of travelling on the main road.

J, T, Lloyd v, J. Malone fell through as there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant either f.red the pistol or even intended to do bodily harm to the plaintiff. It was proved pretty conclusively that the defendant did fire a pistol off, and that high words had passed between the two litigants on the occasion referred to, but considering the slight nature of the convicting evidence in the matter the Tench dismissed the case. The Court then adjourned.