RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 305, 16 October 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TEMUKA.

.» Wednesday, .Oct 13. [Before F. Guinness, Esq, R.M., and S. D. Barker, Esq., J.P.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. A case of this nature against Robert Kelly, who did not appear, was dismissed at the request of the police, as the accused lived some distance from the Court and had attended last Court day. Dismissed accordingly. BREACH OF THE PUBLIC-HOUSE OBDINANCE. George Smith, T. Housley, and Addison were charged by the police, that on the 27th September last, they did behave in a riotous manner in the Winchester Hotel, and refused to leave when requested. Mr Hamersley appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Austin for the defend ants. It appeared from the evidence of Mr SwintonandW. Newman that on the night in question the accused were in the hotel and refused to leave until half-past twelve, although requested

to leave ; that they were linging and otherwise making a noise. Mr Austin having at length addressed the Bench, His Worship said the offence had been clearly proved and that publicans must be supported in their endeavors to prevent dis'urbances, and inflicted a fine of Ll each, with costs of witnesses.

A charge against the same defendants for breaking three panes of glass belonging to the Winchester Hotel on leaving was dismissed for want of sufficient evidence to connect the defendants with the offence. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given in the following cases . —J. W. White v. A. Waddle, L 6 6a •, Gumming and Hayes v. G. Lynch, L 7 15s 6d ; same v. D. King, L 4 18s ; same v. G. Hart L 6 10s ; same v. Albert (a native) 12s 6 J ; same v. C. Jones, L 6 10s ' f same v. Pratley, L 5 lis. F. Franks v. R Derrrick—Claim L 35, for damages. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff and Mr White for defendant. The evidence for the palainliff was to the effect that the defendant in endeavouring to drive one of plaintiff's horses to the pound, had, by his careless and furious driving, driven the horse into the plaintiff's brewery, the horse while ihere damaging a quantity of malt. Also, that the defendant left the horse in the brewery. The defendant gave evidence that the plaintiff's son took down a slip-panel and allowed the horse to enter a paddock, from which paddock the horse entered the brewery, and that the plaintiff refused to allow him (the defendant) to enter the brewery to get the horse out. In reply to His Worship, the plaintiff said he did not take the horse out of the building until two hours after the defendant left. His Worship non-suited the plaintiff, on the ground that there was no evidence to show Jwhat amount of damage had been done during the two hours that the plaintiff had allowed the horse to remain.