RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 374, 12 April 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TEMUKA.

Monday, Apb.il 11, 1881. (Before J. Nugent Wood, Esq,, R.M>, and S. D. Barker, Esq., J.P.) CREATING A DISTURBANCE. William Bamborough and Michael Day were charged by Mr Swinton with creating a disturbance at #he Winchester Hotel. After hearing the evidence the Bench fiDed each of the accused 20s, and 30s costs, or, in default, seven days imprisonment in the gaol at Timaru. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Patrick Grealish was charged with having been drunk and disorderly, and was fined 20s and costs. Cornelius Donovan was charged with a similar offence. In reply to a question put by the Bench, Sergeant Carlyon said that the accused was very " quiet " when taken. The Bench fined him ss. TRESPASS. Peter McLean and Thomas Howarth were cbargsd with trespassing on the grounds of Mr J. Hayhufat. John Hayhurst, deposed : On the Ist April, about daybreak, I heard firing of guns near my house. Went round to the creek and found the accused Howaith on my ground. He had something in his possession. My son will prove about the other man. John Hayhurst, jun., deposed : On the Ist Apnl my father oame to me and informed me there were men shooting on our land. I got on a horse and eventually saw a man named McLean on the land. I asked him what he was doing there, and he told me he was looking to see who was shooting. I told him he would be prosecuted for trespass. The accused Howarth, in defence, said that , he had been accustomed to shoot round the creek for the past four years, and had never been informed he was doing wrong. McLpan remarked that he was merely taking a quiet walk. Had no gun, and was not in pursuit of game. Mr Hayhurst said that although he had for years advertised trespass notices it had had no effect, apd if shooting were allowed to go on as it had been there would shortly be no fowl left. His Worship considered that the present atep which Mr Hayhurst had taken was the most effective, way of advertising. He should fine McLean Is for trespass, and Howarth ss, with costs. He would intimate that if any cases of a similar nature came again before him he should not inflict nominal fines. REFUSING TO ASSIST. Alfred Clark was charged by Thomas Swinton, of the Winchester Hotel, with refusing to assist in arresting two persons who were creating a disturbance in his Hotel on.7th April last. The accused was also charged with using obscene language. Thomas Swinton, deposed . I am licensee of the Winchester Hotel. On 7th Apiil, whilst endeavouring to arrest the two men, who had beeo sentenced by the Court to-day. I called on accused to assist me in the name of the Queen. He refused to do so, and said that Her Majesty and himself could go to . The accused had been a lodger at his hotel for some little while past. John Bray, who was in the hotel at the time, deposed to hearing accused-make use of the language -eompl&wSed. of, also refuse to assist in the arrest of two men. The accused denied the charge., and said he had been half his lifetime in Her Majesty's service, and he did not think he should have made such a fool of himself. Mr Swinton, in reply to the Bench, said that the accused was perfectly sober at the time. The Bench fined the accused 20s and costs, for refusing to assist Mr Swinton, and 20s, and costs, for using obscene language.

(Before J. fc. ■ Wood, Esq., RM.) CIVIL CASES. T. Swinton v. C. Taylor—Claim £l4 5s 6d. The amount had been paid into Court, except 10s for mileage. Judgment was recorded for some. > Same v. Heriarty—Claim £1 dishonored cheque. Judgment by default. >*** W. Weir v. Fletcher—Claim £1 ss. ' Judgment by default. Grant v. L.ow—Claim £44. Mr Tossw ill appeared for plaintiff, and 1 Mr Orm»ly for defendant. This action was brought on a disputed account on contract work. The plaintiffwent through. e«tah item seiiatim. In cross-examination the plaintiff said he made the entries in his book at the time the contracts were made. He couM .not tell how many acres he tilted in a day. ■*__ Mr Ormsby said that his client contested the account as excessive charge. He was perfectly prepared to pay for a fair account. On being pressed,, the plaintiff said that the tilting of fifteen acres, on good ground* was a fair day's work. For his boy's work he was to, have been paid, week. The boy was 16t years of age. Grant, wife of plaintiff; deposed to> defendant calling at bet house in Februarylast and offering him and work at th.e highest rate of wages, going. In cross-examination by Mr Ormsby,, the witness; said she knew nothing about her husband* owing money to Low. James Had dick deposed to paying-or-, dinary hands Is 6d per hour during harvest but tilting was worth a little more-, if they worked long days tilting was worth, from 15s to £1 per day. He got laslj harvest ijorcarting. grain with, three horsea. 30s per day. The charge for the boy's work was reasonable. John Conn, farmer, Levels deposed, as, to prices during harvest. A man was. then w.orth about 15s per day, and cart-, ing. grain with threa horses and a waggon, 30s a day. John Low, the defendant, deposed, thai Grant tilted 2?-acres. There should, have been about seven or eight, acres, in about three and a half days work. I madeno arrangement whatever in regard to the. rate with Grant. I should consider Is per hour good payment for tilting.. There were two teams at work with five men I would be glad to be paid 7s to cart an acre. A set off amounting to £44 14s 6d waa then gone through in regard to the various items. His Worship gave judgment as-follows *;* — Be Grants claim, tilting, 12 days at lfsS> per day, £7 4s : carting grain, 12 30s. £lB ; boy's wages, £5, Total £30145. Lows' set-off, grazing four fillies, £4 4s s firewood, £1 ; cash to Ackroyd. £2 Is 6dTotal £7 5s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff therefore for £22 18s 6d with costs. Oldfield v. Buckle—Claim £B3 8s 9d. Mr White appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendant. The sum of £6l 14s 5d had. been paid; into court, and a set-off had been filed amounting to £l3. The amount charged, for [threshing of 4d per. bushel, wa» disputed as excessive. John Ackroyd, farmer, deposed to pay-, ing 4d per bushel for threshing wheat and . 3£d for oatsJohn Buckle, defendant, deposed to, making an arrangement with plaintiff to, pay 3£d {or threshing wheat and 3d for oats. He disputed the charge for half a ton of chaff as it had been previouslysettled for. Two sons of defendant deposed as to. . the price offered by their father for threshing. Alexander Mcßratney deposed to pay-, .hag 3J per bushel for thrashing wheat and oats all round. Michael Gaffaney deposed to paying 3£d per bushel for thrashing wheat, and 3d for oats. His Worship, in giving judgment, considdred that the chaff had been paid for, and that a contract had.been entered into, at 3£d and 3d per bushel. He should, therefore, give judgment for the amount paid into Court, with costs £2- 3s, and solicitor's fee. T. Oldfield v. Mr, Whitei appeared for the plaintiff.- ~ From the evidence i% appeared that the defendant had kept some sheep of plain- • tiff's that had strayed on his land. The latter was not properly fenced. As plain-, tiff had paid defendant the sum of £1 in order to get his sheep back, he brought the present action to recover the amount, charged illegally. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff,-, with solicitor's fee.. The Court then rose.