MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2754, 20 January 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMABTJ—THIS DAY. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and E. G. Stericker, Esq., J.P.] DRUNKENNESS. A man named Craig was fined 20s for being drunk and disorderly, and for indecent exposure. A first offender was fined 10s. OBSTRUCTING THE RAILWAY, John Sullivan, a lad between 12 and 13 years of age, was charged with placing stones on the railway lino “ with intent to endanger, the safety of any person travelling by such railway.” The lad was understood to admit the charge, but His Worship decided to hear the evidence, Mr Inspector Pender conducted the prosecution and called Robert Bowie, gardener, living on Maori Hill, stated that about 7 in the evening of the .14th inst., he was walking along the railway line near Mr Stewart’s house at the head of the bay, and met three boys. A little furthei bn he saw eight stones oh the rails, twenty or thirty yards apart. He called Mr Stewart’s attention to the stones, and he (Mr Stewart) ran after the boys. Witness did not see the boys put stones on the rails. The stones he saw on the rails were like the stones produced (ordinary flat pebbles of a size common in the ballast of the line.) James Stewart, railway bridge inspector, stated that, his attention having been called to the stones on the line by the last witness, he ran after the boys, and overtook them. He asked which of them put the stones on the line, and one of them said the prisoner did it. He asked prisoner what his name was, and where ho lived, but he did not answer. He took him to the Melville Hotel, having to carry him part of the way, and gave him in charge of Mr Hillary, another railway employe. On tbejway the boy said “ They put on atones as well as me.” ■ The Albury train was due in about three quarters of an hour. To the Bench —The stones might or might not have thrown the train off the line, and might or might not have caused damage to the engine. Samuel Bryan was then called, but his father appeared and said his son had been away from his work three days already about the case, and he would not come again unless he was fetched. The .summons, also, he said was not properly served. Inspector Pender said Bryan, was encouraging the boy to stay away. Theßench ordered a constable to be sent for the witness.

James Burns, a lad of seven, was then called. His Worship said he would not take his evidence down on the depositions but would hear what he had to say. The boy said the three of them had been out to the Washdyke on that day and came back along the line. Jack Sullivan put two stones on the line in the cutting. He put some others on the line at the Washdyke. Sam Bryan told Sullivan to lake them off, but he would not.

At this stage the case was adjourned till later in the day. At the conclusion of the civil business the boy Bryan was, in attendance, iln answer to the Bench he said he was thirteen years and a half old. He went to night school and to church. The bp’'’* 3 father objected to his being swor: inlesss he showed that he knew >vhat was meant by an oath. His Worship then questioned the lad as to his knowledge of the difference between truth and falsehood, and of “ what would become of him ” if ho told a lie. The boy said he knew the nature of an oath and the difference between truth and a lie, but to tho question what would become of him if he told a lie he ventured no reply. He was then sworn, and his evidence corroborated the statement of the smaller boy. He also said that Sullivan put only two stones on the rails. Witness told him to throw thorn off again but ho would not. The accused was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supremo Court, and the father of tho lad Bryan was bound over to secure his appearance as a witness at the trial. Civil Oases. Mr Hamersley applied for costs to he allowed tho defendant in the case Hutton v. Harlock, which had been withdrawn by the plaintiff. The

summons was issued returnable last Tuesday, and : notice was not given to defendant till yesterday that the case would be withdrawn, and ho therefore applied for costs,-as if the cade had been broughtinto Court and been withdrawn, or a nonsuit granted. If a ; party 1 had gone to the expense of engaging counsel and the case was withdrawn at the last moment, costs should be allowed. Hie client received notice frOno the .'othei side of the withdrawal, but he was summoned by the Court, and only a’ notice from the Court could relieve him from attending. Mr Reid having replied, His Worship refused the application. It bad always been a matter of practice that when notice of withdrawal had been given by plaintiff the case was considered withdrawn from the Court.

Dargaville v. McOombe—Claim £ll 12s 6d, for wages. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff. ~A portion of the .claim was disputed on the ground that plaintiff was not working all the time hd claimed payment for. Plaintiff said it was defendant’s fault that he was not, he not having work ready for him. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs £2 135., McKenzie v, Tomlinson—Claim £4 9s 2d, balance due for lodging and nursing defendant’s wife, cash lent, and expenses incurred in her behalf in the earlier part of 1881. ■■

Mr Hamersley for plaintiff and Mr White for defendant.

The evidence of the principals was very contradictory, and the claim appeared largely a trumped np one. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 19s 2d, with costs of Court.

. Reid v. Austin, claim £Bl6s, balance due Tor salary. ; - . '!•( Mr Hamersley for defendant. r The claim was disputed on the ground that plaintiff charged more for his services than was agreed upon. Some evidence having been taken it was agreed,, on the suggestion of His Worship, to adjourn the case, to enable it to be settled amicably if possible. ! ' PROTECTION ORDER. Mr Hamersley applied onbehalfof Elizabeth Anne Cole for an order protecting her earnings from her husband William Cole, and for the custody of her child, a hoy of seven. ; : After taking the evidence of the applicant, the order was granted as applied for. TRANSFER OF LICENSE. On the application of Mr Hamersley, a transfer of the licence of ‘ the Boyal Hotel, Timarn, from Michael Mullin to M. Spillane. was granted. The Court then adjourned.