RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1194, 24 June 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temitka—Monday, Jtjnb 23, 1884.

[Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] CRUELTY TO A HORSB. John Bnrke, a lad of about 12 years of ag6, was charged with having maliciously wounded a horse, and also with cruelty to the horse.

Mrs Woodley and John Spillane gave evidence to the effect that on Sunday, the 15tli instant, defendant was driving three horses belonging to different owners, and on the horses being turned back by the last witness accused threw a spear at the horse, which stuck in its side, an, remained in until accused's father moved it.

George Levens gave evidence as ro the injuries to the horse, to the effeet that the wound was a quarter of an inch in diameter and six inches deep. The Court ordered the defendant to pay £2 fees for attending to the horse, £1 for damage to the horse, and 5s costs. The defendant was severely cautioned by the Court, and dismissed with the understanding he would come up for judgment again if the money was not paid.

CATTLE TRESSPASS. Stephen Taylor was charged with having allowed one cow to wander on the railway, and was fined 20s and costs. CIVIL CASES. Trustees in K. Knowles's Estate v. R. Duncan—Claim £lB Bs. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and coßts. J. Brown v. J. Willis—Claim £4l2s 3d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. W. Ackroyd v. M. Ahem—Claim £6 18s.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. K. F. Gray v. R. Hornbrook. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant, and pnt in a plea of bankruptcy. K. F. Grny stated that the amount was= correct, and that he received no notice of the bankruptcy. R. Hornbrook stated that he had filed on the 17th of January. Mr White acted for him, but he did not know whether a notice w.nS given to Mr Gray or not.

The Magistrate said he was afraid he would have to take that as a sufficient answer.

Mr Gray said his name had not been put on the schedule of the creditors of the defendant. The case- was ordered to stand over until it was discovered whether a notice had been given. W. Bird v. T. Thomson—Claim £5 (value of a gun). This amount was alleged to be due on account of a gun alleged to have been taken from plaintiff by the defendant. In reply to Mr Aspinall, the plaintiff said the gun was taken in 1881, and he had not looked after it since.

Harry Smith stated that he saw young Thomson take it away about two yeats ago. To Mr Aapinall ; Was not thera when Bird left. Knew the gun belonged to Bird. Saw Tom Thomson taking it away. Bird did not leave the gun iu witness' charge. Thomas Thomson, the defendant, said ho saw the gun at the kennels, aud handled it. Never took it. He took it oat into

tbe yard, but did not take it any further. Edward Smith had it shooting with.

To Defendant : When you came back I said it was in the shop and would try to get it for you. Edward Smith said he had used the gun two ®r three times shooting. He got it at the shop and put it back again. Several people used it. Boyd Thomson deposed : In 1881 plaintiff was training dogs for other gentlemen, and I supplied him with food. He bolted away without saying anything about the gun. Never used the gun. Have three guns of my own. The gun was not worth much. His Worship said he did not think he had evidence sufficient to fix the gun on young Thomson. He would nonsuit the case, but he would suggest that the gun ahould be given up if it could be found. OBSCKNE LANGUAGE. William Nelson v&t oharged with having used obscene language at Milford. Constable Morton said the defendant, a young man, was a great annoyanceto his neighbors. His mother was receiving charitabls aid and he wub leafing on her. A. ColYilla said the language used by defendant to his mother was scandalous. He was always a great annoyance. James F«rgusson said he lived near the Milford crossing, and saw the defendant on the day in question. He used threatening language and called hi.« mother bad names. His Worship said he had no doubt the defendant was one of those youDg larrikins that he was determined to put a ■top to. He would fine him £2 and costs. The defendant said he had not got the money, and asked for time to pay. His Worship said he would send him to gaol for 14 days, and it served him right. It was disgraceful that h« should live on his mother, who was receiving charitable aid. It was a shame for him not to work. COMPLAINT. Mrs Carr complained to the Court that on that day week she had been summoned foi 3s lOd, and as the plaintiff did not prove his case he was nonsuited, and yet she had to pay 10s costs. In reply to the Bench, Mr Wills explained the c*se. His Worship ; Nonsuited the plaintiff and ordered defendant to pay costs 1 Mr Wills : Yes, your Worship. His Worship: Well, I can't interfere with the Justices. The Court then adjourned.