RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA

Temuka Leader, Issue 291, 16 September 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT TEMUKA

WEDMESDAy, Sept 8

[Before F. Guinness, Esq , R.M.]

Temuka School Committee v, Bryant.— This was an adjourned case from last Courtday.

Mr A. Wilson (Chairman of the Committee) appeared on behalf of the Committee, Mr Johnstone for defendants.

Mr Wilson proved from the minutes of the Committee’s proceedings a resolution was unanimously passed authorising the Chairman to prosecute. Mr Mclntosh, head master of the Temuka school, on being put in,to the box, stated that Bryant’s child was not at school on the day named in the information, nor for many a day previpus.

The Chairman asked witness if he had served Bryant with a notice according to the Act.

Witness aq-id he had not, but he had written the notice out, which was signed by the Chairman, and another person had served them.

The _ hairman next Pallad GK Davis, car - taker. Davis, on being sworn, was asked by the Chairman if he had served Wm. Bryant with a notice.

Witness said he had served Bryant of Sodtown, but not the Bryant jn T'enmka. Mr Johnstouo said he must submit that as the defendant had not been seryed with a notice, the case must be dismissed. His Worship said he must concur in that yiew of the case. On Mr Johnstone claiming his client’s expenses for attending, ho was allowed 10s.

Same r. Boulter. —Mr Wilson appeared for the School Committee ; Mr J ohnstone for defendant. Mr Mclntosh stated that Boulter’s child was absent from the school, on the day named in the information. He could prove this from bis register, which dated back to March, and showed that defendant’s child was not present at school during that time. He had pof served the notice on Boulter. The prosecutor said he would call another witness, who would prove the service of the notice.

Q-eorgo Davis, on being sworn, and shown a copy of a printed notice, said he had served such notice, with the spaces filled up and signed by the Chairman, Mr -I hustone asked if that was a copy of the notice served, and pointed out tnaf the spaces were not filled in. The prosecutor said he had handed the notices to the head master to fall up and serve, but being ignoi ant as well as himself of the necessity of keeping a copy, he had not done so.

His Worship said as this point had been neglected, he must dismiss the case with the same costs.

The prosecutor then withdrew the case of Phillips, His Worship remarked that although the defendants had got off, he warned parents and guardians of children that if any case was brought before him {\nd proper proof of the child’s absence and of notice being duly served, he would convict, as he was bound to do, according to the education Ordinance, as it was not right to allow children to roam at large when a free education was provided for them. If the Committee brought on the case properly, he would impose the penalty allowed by law. CIVIL CASES. Dr Cumming v Dunnage. Defendant did pot appear. Judgment for plaintiff, witn costs, T 9 9s 6d in all. Gaffney v Morris--Judgment confessed. Thomsen y Kett—No appeerance of defiant Judgment for plaintiff, with costa, L 95 Ipa dd Thomson v Fletcher —Judgment confessed Gaffney v Broshahan—Mr Austin for plaintiff ; Mr White for defendant This was an action for impounding cattle Case dismissed, plaintiff to pay costs and solicitor’s fee

Franks Y JJerrJok —Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant

This was a case of defendant’s impounding a horse The defendant, in driving plaintiff’s horse to pound, let him into plaintifi’s malh house and damaged his malt My Franks said defendant was driving his horse in a wild way, and the horse went into his malt-house anu did serious damage

This case was held over till next Court day

QUARTERLY LICENSING CO CRT

Wednesday, Sept. 15,1880,

(Before F. Guinness, A. Cox, and J Gammack, E^qs.) EXTENSION OF TIME.

Mr Qllivier applied for an extension of time to add additions to the Temuka Hotel Tiie Bench decided to allow two months, and if the additions were not completed by that time, the Bench to reserve the right of withdrawing the license. When these conditions are carried out the Bench also to reserve the right of allowing a transfer or not.