RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1375, 6 August 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, August 5, 1885. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and J. Talbot, Esq., J.P.] EFFIGY BURNING, E. Radburns, T. King, J. Morgan, W. Scott, G. Hobbs, E. King, and J. F. Douglass were charged with hating behaved in an unlawful manner calculated to provoke a breach of the peace on the l]th of April last. Mr Lynch appeared for the defence. Constable Morion stated that about half-past 8 o’clock on the night of the 11 th of July last he saw a disorderly crowd passing the police station. They went to the open space in front of the residence of Mr Michael Quinn. They were hooting and groaning. Saw Douglass giving instructions by saying : “ That will do. Far enough.” The others were upholding a gallows with the effigy of a man hanging from it. The Constable warned them, and Morgan cried out “ Burn the After this Mr Quinn’s friends become excited, and one called them a cowardly lot and offered to fight, and only for hia presence there might have been a breach of the peace committed. To Mr Lynch ; The light was pat out and I struck a match, There was no breach of the peace. I heard of a breach of the peace having been committed afterwards. There were about 100 people on the ground, and I selected these as leaders by the light of a match. Constable Guerin : On the evening of the lltb of last month saw a crowd as described by Constable Morton. Recognised four of the defendants amongst those present. Mr Ackroyd got excited and offered to fight any of them. They would have burned the effigy only for the police interfering. Mr Lynch objected to the information, on the ground that it was not laid properly. His Worship said he thought the information was good, it would have been better certainly had the douse been quoted, but he would rule that the information was good. I Mr Lynch reminded the Court of the burning in effigy of Mr Bryce, in that case the information stated that a heap of rubbish had been burned. They did not want to insinuate that Mr Quinn was a heap of rubbish he supposed. (Laughter). In this case the effigy was not burned, and consequently there was no cause for a breach of the peace. His Worship decided the information was good, and suggested that Mr Lynch should go on with the defence. J. F. Douglass, as a witness for the defence, said he was several chains away at the time Morton came. He was preventing a man from fighting Mr Ackroyd, He would not say he was not concerned in the affair, hut he was not upholding the gallows when passing the Road Board Office. This having concluded the case, His Worship commented severely on Douglass’ evidence, and said he had tried to mislead the Bench. He was determined to put a stop to such practices and would inflict a fine of 10s each on the defendants. Several of the defendants said they could not pay, and His Worship said

that in that case they would bo sent to gaol for 48 hoars. ASSAULT. Michael Quinn was charged on the information of John Fergusson Douglass with assault, Mr Lynch said he did not intend to go on with this case, and asked it to be withdrawn. His Worship said that in that case he would reduce the fines inflicted in the other case to 3 s each or 12 hours’ imprisonment. Had the case against Quinn been gone on with he would have fined him jnst as soon as any of the others, BREACHES OF TOWN BY-LAWS. John Norton was charged with haring allowed a horse and cart belonging to him to wander at large in the public street. Constable Guerin proved the offence. The defendant said that the horse “ cleared out” of Blyth’s coal yard from him, and it was taken by the police to the stable. The horse never cleared out before. Janies Blyfh corroborated the statement of the defendant. Fined 5s and costs. , CIVIL CASES. F. Storey v. W. Nailer—Claim £5 15.°.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. James Blyth v. G. Smith—Claim £4 Is.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Wyatt v. Brown.—ln this case His Worship said he was not prepared to give judgment, as some papers of his had been mislaid. White v. Meredith. In this case there was an application put in for a rehearing, Mr Raymond opposed the rehearing. The object of it was to put off payment until the goods of defendant advertised for sale were sold. Mr Aspinall said it was the mortgagee who was selling Meredith out. Fresh evidence had been obtained. Ills Worship said the application for rehearing would have to be made before the Justices who had heard the case. He would have nothing to do with it. At a later stage, when Messrs S. D, Barker an I J. Talbot were on the Bench, Mr Aspinall renewed his application, He said he could produce fresh evidence which would corroborate defendant’s statement that he had been promised a discount of £B, and which was not allowed at last hearing. Mr Raymond objected to the application being granted, without Mr Aspinall put in some evidence to support the same. Mr Aspinall contended that this was quite unnecessary, but as the Bench took the same view as Mr Raymond, and the evidence was pot forthcoming, the application was refused. J. Bryan v. E. Sheedy—Claim £lO 10s. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lynch for defendant. J, Bryan, the plaintiff : I have been buying pigs for Mr Sheedy. In May Sheedy was baying pigs in Temuka, and I told him about these pigs. At the commencement of the season the defendant wrote to me, saying he would not give more than 4d per lb. Saw Mr Richards, and bought 23 pigs on behalf of Mr Sheedy from him. Killed these pigs, and when I gave notice to Mr Sheedy he replied : “ A« the man wants payment on delivery, I will not take them at all.” I took the pigs to Timaru, and sold them as I could. The defendant took no notice of letters 1 sent him. I have been purchasing for him far two years. To Mr Lynch : I bought pigs from Mr Postlethwaite, Mr Wnreing and others for Mr Sheedy. Mr Sheedy eaw Mr Postlethwaito’s pigs a month beforehand.

i he defence wag that the plaintiff was never an agent of the defendant’s, but the Court held that the telegram sent to him showed he was an ngent, Mr Lynch said that in that casa he would not go any further with the cose, and judgment was giren for the amount claimed and costs. Moorhead ?. J, Grigg—Claim £33 19s. A set off for £1 4s was put in, and the sum of £2B 13s wag paid into Court. "During the hearing of this case Mr S, D. Barker took his seat on the bench.] This was a case in which the plaintiff (threshing machine own ») sued the defendant for threshing his grain—the wheat at 3-|d per bushel and the oats at 3d. The defendant disputed the claim on the ground that when the wheat was sent to Timaru it was found when weighed that there were not as many bushels threshed as were charged for. An amount was also claimed for the board of thefeederand driver of the engine (£2 18s 4d), and this the defendant also objected to, because he had made a special gareenaent to the effect that ho was not to provide any food whatever. The defendant also claimed to be allowed for the wages of three men (£1 4s), whom he had paid for working at the machine, at per hour, when threshing beans on Easter Monday, when he alleged the machine wap shorthanded. The plaintiff held that he provided the machine on that day with the full complement of hands required. Mr Moorhead and Mr Jones gave evidence in support of the claim, and Mr Grigg and Mr S. Bradley for the defendant. The latter was called to bear out the statements of the defendant as to the agreement and where it was made. Jones made the agreement with defendant, and he (Jones) alleged it was made in the yard of the Orari Hotel when no one was present, while the defendant stated (and his statement was borna out by the witnopf Brsadley)

that the agreement wusraade in the hotel in the presence of Breadloy. In giving judgment, the Resident Magistrate said the only question was regarding the sacks not containing the number of bushels charged and signed for, but he believed it was the custom with threshing machine owners when the weights were not found to be correct to rectify the same. He had not the slightest doubt that the evidence of Messrs Grigg and Breadley was correct, and he thought that the set-off must be allowed. Taking everything into consideration, he should give judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount paid into Court, each party to pay their own costs. The Court then rose.