RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1381, 20 August 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka— Wednesday, August 19, 1885. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] LAYING POISON. George Prattley was charged with having laid poison on the section occupied by himself in Temuka. George McMillan : I reside with Mr Grant. On the 30th of last month 1 drove through Temuka. I do not know whether my dog went into Prattler's place. At the Opihi Bridge my dog dropped down dead. 1 saw an advertisement in the paper, on account of which I went to Prattley's residence, and he told me had laid '* Rough on rats." He then said he had laid none at all. The dog was valued at £ls. Don't know whether the dog went on Prattley's section or not. Gordon P. Wood : I saw Prattley with McMillaD, and Pratley said be had laid "Rough on ruts," and when McMillan said he had lost his dog, Prattley said he had not laid poison at all: that he only advertised to frighten the neighbors. Dr Hayes: The defendant lives next door to my house. A turkey-hen of mine was poisoned. The symptoms were like poisoning. " Rough on rats' is poison. I also lost a hen. The hen was all right at 12 o'clock, and it was dead before 2 o'clock. To Mr Hamersley : It was not an old turkey-hen. There are other neighbors around there. I did not make a post mortem of the birds. J. M. Twotney produced a copy of the advertisement inserted in the Temuka. Leader. Mr Hamersley submitted the prosecution had not proved that the offence waa .committed within prohibited limits. Defendant had been charged with haviDg laid poison within the limits of the Town District, and it had not been proved that Prattley's place was within the limits of the Town District. His Worship : 1 am not surprised at the objection you take. What ought to have been done was to draw the information so that it would appear that the poison bad been laid near a public place. The information is bad, and the case is dismissed. LARCENY FROM A DWELLING. John Tandy was charged with having entered the storeroom of Mrs Swinton's Hotel, Winchester, on the 15th instant, and stolen therefrom ten bottles of ale, of the value of 15s. In reply to the Bench the accused elected that the case should be summarily dealt with. Fr«d. Hassell : I am a servant at Mrs Swinton's. I sleep on the premises. On last Saturday morning, the 15th instant, I heard footsteps in the storeroom, and saw John Tandy in the storeroom. He had a light in bis hand, and several bottles of beer under his arm. I said " I have got you, Jack." He then went away. Maria Swinton : On Saturday morning last I heard the servants speaking and got up myself, and found the storeroom broken into. The accused had no right to enter the storeroom. 1 laid the bottles of ale down in a certain form so that 1 should know if any had been taken. The accused denied having taken the beer, but admitted having gone into the storeroom. He was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labor. CIVIL CASES. Thomson and Smith v. J. Smith— Claim £l9 9s 6d. Judgment summons. Ordered to pay at the rate of 10s per week' or in default 14 days' imprisonment. Dr Campbell v. G. Smith--Claim £2 12s. Judgment summons. Ordered to pay at the rate of 5s per week, or in default seven days' imprisonment. John Craig v. J. Daily—Claim £35 0s 6d. Judgment summons. In this case- judgment was obtained against the defendant in 1883. The defendant then lived in Auckland, and before a distress warrant was executed he left and went to America. He bad now returned to Temuka, and a judgment summons was issued against him. In reply to the Court, the defendant said that be was adjudged a bankrupt in Auckland, and that before the judgment was obtained be had gone to America. His Worship : If you were adjudged a bankrupt, where did you get the money to take you to America ? The defendant did not reply. His Worship : Low much did it cost to go to America ? The defendant: £2O. His Worship : I do not think yuxi are a person that ought to be spared. You will have to pay at the rate of 10s a week, or go to gaol for 14 days. The defendant : I have no money. His Worship; You must go to gaol, then. The first payment must be made this day week. "WYATT V. BROWN. In this case, in which judgment was reserved, His Worship gave his decision. Ha said he bad taken great pains with the case, because it was very singular and difficult,! and the conclusion he had arrived at may possibly require the revision of a higher Court. It appeared that at the time of Uprichard'B death he owed Mr Brown money for rent, and Mrs Uprichard remained in tho house after this as a tenant at will. The furniture did not belong to Upricbard, but to Wyatt, who warned Mr Brown's bailiff he had no right to distrain on the furniture. He also told him he bad no right to sell it within the five* clear days. The goods were seized on a Monday and sold on a Saturday, which did not leave the five clear days for Wyatt to replevy. The points urged in layor of Wyatt were : that the defendant did not give the required notice ; that he sold within the five clear days ; that consequently Wyatt hud not sufficient time to replevy ; that no tenancy existed between Mr Brown and MrsTJprichard, and consequently Mr Brown had no right to distrain. On the other side it was held that Mrs Uprichard became tenant, and that Wyatt was a consenting party to the sale of the goods. He was inclined to believe that Wyatt was a consenting party, because Brown could not know of the Bill of Sale ordy that Wyatt told him of it. Then, again, Wyatt assisted the bailiff in removing the goodß. Then came the question of the five days clear dayß. It was quite true thnt fie goods had no right to have lean, sold

within ilie five clear days, but he looked upon that us only an irregularity. He thought on account of the goods being sold within the five days Wyatt was entitled to damages, and ou that giound he would give judgment for £5 and costs. Mr Aspinall asked that execution should be delayed until Mr Brown had time to bring a cross action against Mr Wyatt. Mr Tosswill submitted that Mr Brown ought to have brought the action before. Mr Aspinall said it would have been useless to take proceedings against Wyatt before now as he had nothing. The action was for damages done to the property. His Worship decided that the money should be paid into Court and kept there for a week. He promised to bo present this day week to hear the cross action. The Court then adjourned.