RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 9426, 4 July 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, July 3, 1882. TBefore S. D. Barker, and J. Mendelaon, Esqs., J.P's.] LARCENY. Thomas Thompson was charged wilh - the larceny of a pipe from the shop of Thomas Sheen. Thomas Sheen: I know acciued; he was in my shop last Thursday night. My wife was ic the shop. A pipe similar, to

the one produced was in the shop, I missed it on the following night. I have loßt a pipe similar to the one produced. I did not suspect the accused. The value of the pipe is 8s 6d. Elizabeth Sheen, wife of last witness : Accused was looking at the pipes in my Bhop. I could not swear the pipe produced is the one taken from my shop, but it is exactly similar. The accused was pricing the pipe. Thomas Burke, constable : From information I received I arrested the accused. I asked him for the pipe, and he said he had sold it. He said he had bought the pipe at Sheen's. When he woke up in the lock-up on Friday morning he did not seem to know he had the pipe, and said he must have bought it at Sheen's, and that that was the way bis money went. Joseph Sawyer, barman at the Arowhenua Hotel, stated that he bought the pipe from the accused at 2s. Accused aaid he bought it at Sheen's shop. The accused made a statement on oath to the effect that he came to town on Thursday, changed a cheque and got drunk. While in that state he went into A. Mr Sheen's to pay some money he owed. He was arrested by the police and did not know, anything about the pipe until he saw it in the lock-up the following morning. He thought he had bought it at Sheen's, and sold it afterwards, as he did not want it. He firmly believed he had got the pipe honestly. Mr Barker said there was a doubt as to whether the accused had stolen the pipe, and therefore he would get the benefit. The case ought to be a severe warning to him, as if he went on drinking ho might get into some worse trouble. He would be dismissed, but the Court cautioned him not to go drinking as he was doing or the consequences might be serious. FURIOUS RIDING. John Wishat was charged with having been drunk and disorderly while in charge of ahorse; with furious riding through the town ; and with assaulting the police in the execution of their duty. Thomas Bourke, constable, deposed: About the time the people were coming out of church on last Sunday evening I »aw two men riding horses furiously—-as hard as thev could drive- through the town. They stopped near the Teranka A Hotel, and when 1 came up to them I ■poke kindly to them until I got them off the horses. I then arrested them but the accused became violent and me struck in t he mouth. I then had to let the other go, and called Mr Boyd Thomson to my assistance. I then took accused to the lockup. To ibe accused : You said you would walk to the lock-up if you were let go, but I was afraid you would get on your horse and go away. Boyd Thomson saw accused coming with another man through the town at a very rapid pace, Saw Bourke struggling with accused. Went and spoke to the other who was conducting himself very gentlemanly, and was taking him away Constable Morton came up and took him in charge. If it had ben a faw minutes later the racing through the street might have been serious, as the people came out of the churches shortly after The defendant said he was drunk, and did not know what he was doing. f~ He was fined 20s for the first offence, 10s for the second offence, and 40s for assaulting the constable, Mr Barker remarking that it was the lowest fine the law allowed them to inflict in the two first cases. In default of payment he would be imprisoned for 14 days. Henry Mollier, companion of the last prisoner in the race, was charged with hating baen drunk and disorderly while in charge of a horse, and with furious riding through the street, He denied having been drunk, and aaid his horse only trotted through the street. The eridence of Constable Bourke was the same as in the last case, excepting that he stated that Mollier's horse was going as hard as it could, and that he was under the influence of drink. John Morton, constable, stated that shortly after 8 o'clock he took the accused from Mr Boyd Thomsom. He was the worse of drink, but could walk and conduct himself properly, Boyd Thomson said that the idea of him riding at the rate ho did would lead anyone to believe accused was drunk. He was not sober, but was able r to walk and conduct himself properly. The horses were going as fast as they could. Mr Barktr said the Court had decided that although accused may not have been very drunk he was under the influence of liquor. Riding furiously through the town was a very serious offence. He would be fined 20s for the first offence, and 20s for the second, or in default seven days' imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. Dr Foster v. D. Heffern an—Claim £1 Is ; professional fee. The defendant deniad owing the money. He made an agreement with Dr Foster that if he got a case he had in Court , adjourned he would give him a guinea, but if he did not he would give him nothing. Mr Mendelson said he remembered the case very well, and that Dr Foster took a v great deal of trouble to get the case adjeurned. The ground on which the defendant applied for an adjournment

was that he bad not been summoned soon enough, but it turned out that he had, and when it came to be adjourned he refused to pay costs. Dr Foster took a great deal of trouble to get the case adjourned and it was the defendant's own fault that it was not. The Court could do nothing but give judgment for Dr Foster, with costs. J. Tangney v, T. Gibson—Claim £2 4s. Judgment by default for the amount claimed aud costs.