MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2510, 6 April 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAIHJ—THIS DAY.

(Before R. Beetham Esq., R.M.)

A NARROW SQUEAK

Archie Hoskins was charged with committing a breach of the railway by-laws by crossing the line with a horse and vehicle within a mile of an approaching train. John Vincent, fireman, stated that he was on the engine attached to a train on March 5, and when between St Andrew’s and Otaio, the defendant crossed the line with a horse and dray about a quarter of a mile ahead of it. The driver , blew the whistle and slackened speed, but the horse attached to defendant’s vehicle got frightened and backed the dray into some trucks as the engine was passing. He could see the train coming. The defendant said he never heard the engine whistle and was not aware that the train was approaching. His Worship said that this was a very serious offence indeed, and as for the defendant’s excuse that he did not know the train was approaching' that went for nothing ; it was the defendant’s business to if necessary to leave his vehicle when crossing the line to ascertain whether the train was coming or not. His carelessness might have resulted in a very serious accident and the death of a number of people. He could inflict a fine of £SO or sentence the defendant to a lengthened term of imprisonment. As it was a first offence he would be fined 40s. The defendant who seemed a good deal relieved by His Worship’s concluding words, paid the money . A DISGUSTED DEBTOR, William Henry Johnson was summoned by J. W. Webb for assaulting him on March 10. Mr White appeared for complainant. The defendant admitted the assault, but pleaded great provocation. John William Webb, the complainant said that he had sent the defendant in an account the day before the assault, and on meeting him in the street on the following morning “could see his mind was made up to give him (witness) a hammering.” De fendant asked witness to go with him to the latter’s workshop, and on the way up the passage . kicked and struck him. The defendant here exclaimed that he admitted striking the complainant, but that he was a contemptible hound, and had sent him in an account, although he was insolvent. His Worship told , the defendant to get into the witness box, if he wish to be sworn, The defendant—l’ll be sworn if you like. Mr Beetham—No, if you like. On getting into the box, the constable in attendance had hardly finished administering the oath to the defendant, i when he remarked, “Oh I know all about that.” His Worship called the defendant to order, and told him to proceed with what he had to saj r , but this was merely a repetition of his former grievance that that the complainant had sent him an account. His Worship said that the defendant had been guilty of a most unprovoked assault, and his only excuse was that the complainant had sent him an account. He M'ould be fined 20sand costs. The defendant was commencing to mumble something about the provocation he had received, when his Worship said the defendant, if he. had any grievance, could summon the complainant. Defendant—What is the use of summoning an insolvent sweep like that ? His Worship said that if the defendant did’nt take care lie would , find himself committed for contempt of Court. The defendant apologised to his Worship and disappeared. UNREGISTERED DOG, Adrian Jackson was charged with having an unregistered dog in his possession. The defendant admitted the charge and was fined ss. His Worship said he would take that opportunity of-referring to the dog cases heard the other day, when objections were made by some of the parties summoned about the length of time that had elapsed between the date on which the informations were laid and the service of the summonses. He had stated at the time that he should enquire into this matter, and had done so, and was happy to say that the delay had been satisfactorily explained, and that the officers of the court were in no way to blame. It was therefore a very great satisfaction to him to have ! ascertained that there bad been a misapprehension with regard to this matter. THE MISUNDERSTANDING AT THE LANDING SERVICE. Samuel Graham was summoned by James Fox, for using threatening language to him yesterday. There was also a cross-action, Graham summoning Fox for assaulting him. Mr Perry appeared for Captain Fox ;

Mr Hamersley for the manager of the Landing Service. ■ After hearing a good deal of evidence, his Worship remarked that it was a pity that cases of this nature should be brought into Court. Parties quarrelled and came into Court in a state of.fever heat to blow off steam as it were, and the quarrel was all re-opened. In tho present instance both cases would he dismissed, and lie would make no order as to costs. CIVIL C^SES. Bruce v. Sibly—Claim £IOO. Mr Reid for plaintiff, Mr Hamersley for defendant. This was a claim for timber supplied for the erection of the Tekapo Bridge, anch the case was partly heard yesterday afternoon when Mr Hamersley applied for a nonsuit on the ground that as two of the items which were deducted from the amount in the bill of particulars were debatable items, the actual amount sued for would be £127, and therefore beyond the juris diction of the Court. His Worship said he would take time to consider the point raised and would give his decision this morning. At 10 o’clock this morning the case came on again for hearing, when after some further argument, His Worship said that unless it could be shewn that the defendant had accepted the account as correct or that the account could be reduced to a sum within the jurisdiction of the Court, he must grant a nonsuit. Mr Hamersley thereupon put his client into the box and he affirmed on oath that he had never assented to any account rendered by the plaintiff whatever, or entered into any agreement with him respecting the account bet ore the Court. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited with costs. The Court then rose.