RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1363, 9 July 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, July 8, 1885.

[Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] UNREGISTERED DOGS.

About a dozen natives appeared to answer various charges of the above nature. They had been before the Court about a fortnight ago on the same charges, and were given notice to register their dogs. The dogs had been since registered, and the cases were withdrawn. UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR. John Blissett was charged with having, on the 26th of June last, behaved in an unlawful raaßner, cal culated to provoke a bleach of the peace. The defendant pleaded guilty.

Constable Morton stated that on the 26tb of June a public meeting was held in the Volunteer Hall, and towards the close of it a great many indulged in flourthrowing. He knew of one man who could not sleep that night owing to his eyes having been filled with flour. At one tima they became so bad that be apprehended a breach of the peace. After they left the hall flourthrowing continued, and it was almost one ahower of flour from the Hall to the corner of the Wallingford Hotel. The crowd afterwards went up to the Salvation Army barracks, nnd continued the flour-throwing, lie saw Blisset there in the middle of the road throwing flour on a person that passed on the other side of the street.

The defendant said that a person threw flour on him, and he only threw the flour back on the same person. His Worship said it wag a stupid practice, and li3 was determined to put a stop to it. It was nonsense that people could not meet without being subjected to such annoyances. Aa this was the first case of the kind be would deal with it leniently, and only inflict a fine of 5s and costs; but if the accused came up on any similar offence ho would dea rigorously with (rim. Wilfred Coop'ar and Robert Blyth pleaded guilty to similar charges, and were similarly dealt with, a fine of 5s an! costa, to include witness’ expens es, being inflicted in each case. CIVIL CASES. P. Coira v. G. Smeeten—Claim £2.

—Judgment by default for amount claimed and ersts.

James Blvth v. A. Man in—Claim 6s 6d, —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costa.

Wright and Tilson v. Conrad Haar £9 10s.

Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Rovmond for defendant.

The plaintiffs and defendant are farmers, living at Rangitata, and a dividing fence is in lispute between them. Haar had made the fence two or three years before Wright took the land, and he made application to Wright to pay half the cost of the fenc Wright had a partnership in a threshing machine, and when he threshed Haar’s grain last season Uaar kept the money for threshing to pay himself for half the cost of the fence.

John Wright said ho was a partner with Tilson in the threshing machine, and threshed bushels of grain for Uaar, but had not been paid.

To Mr Raymond : There was a dividing fence, but it was built by Uaar' Received a letter in 1884 about the fence to the effect that if I did not pay half the cost of the fence legal proceedings would be taken. Haar did not say wo were to thresh the grain for the amount due for 'he fence. Did not tell Tilson that Haar was claiming a set-off. Haar and his son assisted at the threshing.

To Mr Aspinall : To the best of my knowledge the fence was put up three year* before I went there, Conrad Haar said that before Wright took the land ho had made a fence. Wright promised to pay half the cost of the fence. He said the price of the threshing would go against the fencing. The Tilsons would not let them thresh because the money was to go to pay for the fence, until Wright said he would pay it out of his own pocket. Threepence is the usual price for threshing. To Mr Aspinall : The fence was put up two years before Wright took the land. Frederick Haar stated that the Tilsons objected to the threshing as Haar would keep the money for the fencing. Wright said he would pay it out of his own pocket. John Haar and David Watt gave similar evidence.

Messrs Raymond and Aspinall having addressed the Court, His Worship held that there urns a bargain that the should be threshed for what was owing to defendant for the fence, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs.

Dcveaux and Co. v, J. H. Jackson— Claim £2 12s 6d, This was a Christchurch case in which the evidence for the defence was taken in Temuka. Jackson put in a plea of bankruptcy, and also stated that he ordered the paper to be stopped. He was willing to pay for it for a certain time. The Court then adjourned.