MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2295, 26 July 1880, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. [Before R. Bcctluun, Esq., R.M.] A HOUSE A-STEAY. "William Brown was charged with allowing his horse to wander at largo on the Main South road. The defendant pleaded that the horse had only been straying for ten minutes. It being a first offence, a fine of Is was inflicted, with costf. PROTECTION OEDEE. Mr Hamersley made an application under the Married Women’s Protection Act, on behalf of Mrs Mary Akerman, for the protection of her earnings. The order was granted. A MISUNDERSTANDING. Andrew Reid, was charged by Joseph Lorns, bailiff, with assaulting him on July 21, at Saltwater Creek. There was a cross action for assault but both cases were heard together. Mr White appeared for the defendant.

The complainant stated that on July 21 he went to a house at Saltwater Creek to seize certain goods. There were no goods in the house, but a filly ■was grazing in the paddock, and witness was trying to catch this filly when Reid, the defendant, came out and asked him what he was doing there. Witness said he was trying to oatcli the filly. A boy then mounted a pony and was riding off when witness interfered to try and stop him. The defendant thereupon asked him if he was a bailiff, and upon his answering that he was, he said there was one bailiff there already and that was quite enough. Ho then struck the witness about the face and head, giving him a black eye and incapacitating him for his work. Mr White said he would show that the complainant visited the farm of the defendant on-the day in question without stating who he was or showing any authority, and endeavored to interfere with the work. As a matter of fact it was the complainant who struck the first blow. He should have shown bis authority. Any man could call on another and pass himself off fora bailiff if be was not required to show some authority. Several witnesses were examined for the defence, and corroborated the defendant’s statements with regard to the origin of the dispute. From the evidence of these witnesses it appeared that the complainant was the aggressor, and refused to exhibit his authority as bailiff,

His Worship said that there appeared to have been a good deal of’ excitement on both sides. He should dismiss both the cases. There was not the slightest necessity in these cases for the employment of force or violence. If the person distrained upon chose to resist authority he would do so at his own risk. There was really no occasion for any dispute to arise. The Court then adjourned.