MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2645, 12 September 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before 11. Beetham, Esq., E.M., and E. Elworthy, Esq., J.P.) I)HUNK AND DISORDERLY. Three inebriates were fined os apiece. BREACH OF BOROUGH BUILDING REGULATIONS. Au adjourned case against James Malcolm for the above was further adjourned (in consequence of Mr Jameson’s illness) for a week, on the application of Mr Tosswill, who, instructed by Mr Perry, appeared for the Borough Council. CARRYING A JOKE TOO FAR. George Webb, a youth, was sum moned by Thomas Mewis for assaulting him yesterday week by knocking his hat off. The defendant admitted the charge. Thomas Mewis, the complainant stated that he was walking near the Hospital on the day in question when he met the defendant, who knocked his “bell topper” off and considerably altered the appearance of the article. Ho gave the defendant no sort of provocation, and was walking quietly along at the time of the assault. Told defendant that he should summons him, when he replied that he didn’t care a d for that. Complainant thought it very hard that an inoffensive person like himself should be subjected to such treatment. Harry Double corroborated this evidence. George Webb, the defendant,admitted that the assault was unprovoked, but it was raercty intended by way of a joke. Mr Mewis here asked if the Bench would care to gaze on the wreck of the “ bell-topper.” Mr Beetham said he thought not. He imagined this assault was merely apiece of stupid horse-play. Defendant, of course, had no right to act as ho had done, but it was evidently a • jnke, although a foolish one. He., .would, therefore, merely inflict a flue sufficient to carry costs. Defendant was fined la and 9s costs. ALLEGED ASSAULT,

" Peter Bertie wag summoned by Robt. Spunvey for assaulting him. Mr Reid appeared for the defendant and pleaded not guilty.

■lt appeared from the evidence that the defendant leases the paddock at the top of Arthur street, known as Mrs Gibson’s paddock. The paddock is 10 to 15 acres in extent, and some sections on it are sold, the complainant owning two of a quarter of an acre each. Imagining that he hid not got good access to his land he was taking down the fence, which he considered lie had a perfect right to do, as it was on the public road, when the defendant came up and struck Iwn twice, ordering him to desist, and threatening him with violence if he did not.

The defendant §aid ho paid rent to Mrs Gibson for the paddock. On Saturday morning found complainant pulling down the fence and stopped him. Pushed him on one side when he persisted in removing the fence, but would swear that he never struck him. This was not the first time that complainant had removed the fence.

Robert Tomlin, laborer, who was close by, saw no blow struck. Must have seen it if it had been. Mr Reid asked that the information might be dismissed. No blow had been struck, and if the defendant had pushed the complainant aside, he had done so in asserting a proper chum of right. Mr Beetham said that he daresay this case had been brought by complainant with a view of obtaining some information as to his right to remove the fence. The Bench could not, however, advise him on this point. If he had not proper access to his land he should have taken care to ensure that ho would have it when he made the purchase. If promised proper access at the time of purohase and afterwards denied it, ho had his legal remedy. There was no evidence of the assault, and the case would be dismissed. The Court then rose.