RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1396, 24 September 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Sept , Ti, 1885.

[Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.J BURNING CRACKERS. James Hay, Geo. Uupkinson, William Phillips, James McCallum, and Hartly Hopkinson—all boys between 10 and 14 years old—were charged with letting (ff fireworks in a public place on last Saturday night. Constable Guerin gave evidence to the effect that Inst Saturday night about 9 o’clock he saw the accused lighting crackers between the Siar Hotel and the bridge, and throwing them at women as they passed by, His Worship severely cautioned the youthful delinquents and dismissed them, but said it they were ever brought before him again he would deal severely with them.

OBSCENE LANGUAGE

George Ramsay was charged with having on the 6th mst. used obscene language in the Winchester Hotel ; also with having on the 9lh inst. refused to leave the hotel when ordered to do so.

Ramsay was not present when the ease was called, hut walked into Court just as aconstable was ordered to look for him, and exclaimed—“ This is Ramsay !” Mr Beswick then read the charges to him; and with regard to the charge of obscene language, Ramsay said : “ That is the charge I came here to defend.” Mr Beswick : You eame to answer both.

Ramsay : Very well, I am ready to do so.

Mrs Swinton gave evidence to the effect that on the 6th inst. accused came into her hotel, and used very bad language. [Witness handed in a paper with the language written on it.J Ramsay ; Can you read, Mrs Swinton ? Mrs Swinton : I can.

Ramsay : Read what’s on the paper,

Constable Morton (handing the paper to Ramsay) : Here, read it for yourself. Ramsay (after perusing the paper in silence) : There is a point yery carefully left out of this. The witness continued her evidence to the effect that again on the 9th accused came into the hotel, and refused to leave. He made use of bad language.

Ramsay: Did I come into your bouse twenty minutes after eleven o’clock ?

Mrs Swiuton : Not into my bouse. Ramsay : Whose house was it, th en You told me it was your house.

Mrs Swinton ; It was not after eleven o’clock.

Ramsay ; You told me it was—that’s what you said, Mr Beswick here interposed, and Ramsay said : She is a widow, Your Worship, and I don’t like to be hard on her. To Mrs Swinton : Did I not come in to tell you that your dogs were worrying sheep in Mr Inwood’s paddock. Mrs Swinton : You did not. It was not true about the dogs. C. Haar said he happened to be in the hotel at the time. He beard Ramsay making use of bad language to Mrs Swinton, She told him to leave the room, He went away shortly afterwards.

Ramsay : What time was it 1 Witness : Before ten o’clock. Ramsay : Are you certain it was no twenty minutes past eleven o’clock ?

Witness ; It was between nine and ten o’clock.

Ramsay : Do you know the penalty of taking a false oath ? Mr Beswick again interposed, and Ramsay concluded his examination. Mrs ibwinton was recalled, and proved that the language was made use of by Ramsay at the front bar, the door of which opened out on the street. Ramsay said be had been sent on a message by Mr Young to Mr Deßenzie, and when coming back he saw four of Mrs Swinton’s dogs, with another dog, worrying sheep, He went in to tell her and she railed at him, and said he had lost his character and no one would believe him. There was one witness who ought to be present—Miss Garland. If she were a man he would have her present, but as she was only a female he could not force her.

His Worship said the accused had been convicted fifteen times since 388© for such offences as obscene language, drunkenness, and vagrancy. He considered the accused had been guilty of using obscene language in this case. Ramsay : Where is your proof ? Mr Beswiok : The offence has been proved, and 1 will send you to gaol. Ramsay : Ob, yes ; for a long time, I suppose ?

Mr Beswick : I had intended to make it a mouth, but— Ramsay : You have no proof to send send me to gaol. Mr Beswick : I am not sure that you ought not be sent for a longer period. The sentence is one month’s imprisonment with hard labor.

Ramsay: When I-come back I will bring an action against you and Mrs Swinton. I’ll make you regret this, Y ou sent me to gaol without any proof. The constable then proceeded to remove the prisoner, but he told him not to put a hand on him. The constab’e, however, did so. Both himself and prisoner vanished out of Court locked in each others arms, Ramsay the while threatening all concerned that he would have his turn when he came out of gaol,

CIVIL oases’. Temuka Road Board v, H. Rogers —Claim Bs.—Judgment by default for amount c’aimed and costs. W. Ackroyd v. 11. Eagle—Claim £ll 18s. —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. R. LicJsey v. H, Williams— Claim £ —. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Tosswill for defendant. There was also a cross-action of Williams v. Lidsey, and it was decided to take them together. H's Worship said it was only a case of accounts, and asked counsel on both sides to retire for a quarter of an hour, and try to settle the items in dispute. He adjourned the Court for that purpose. After the lapse of time allowed Counsel returned into Court and in timated they had agreed with the exception of certain items. Mr Tosswilt read the list of items, which included lib salt 2d, -|lb tea Is 2d, cheque £l, 21bs sausages Is, and cash at various times.

The case then proceeded. R. Lidsey, deposed : I was engaged by Williams for 21 days 6 hours as carpenter. Williams admitted the time. I always get 10a a day. With regard to the plans, ho asked me to draw the plans for him. The amountallowed for drawing plans is per cent. Did not get lib of salt. Did not get cheque, He gave me a cheque to change at Chamberlain’s, because he said he would not like Chamberlain to know he had money. I got the cheque changed and gave him the money back, with the exception of Is kept by Mr Chamberlain for drinks. He had no money, and could not have given me cash on the days he states.

To Mr Tossvnll : There was no agreement about wages. I was 16 hours preparing the plans. I gave Williams 19s ont of the £1 cheque I changed for him at Chamberlain’s. The shilling went for drinks. Did not get the salt, the tea, the butter, and other things. Here Mr Tosswill produced a block ol wood on which Lidsey was in the habit of putting down what he received. Lidsey admitted having made the figures, but said some of them repre sented the hours he had worked. Witness : Left because he had no work.

To Mr Aspinail : I know he had no money because the bailiffs were in his house and he had no money to pay. James Blylh : The usual rate of wages is lOs per day. The renumeration for preparing plans is per cent. H. Williams ; The agreement was 8s per day. Lidsey worked 18 days 2 hours. On June 2nd I went to Geraldine ; came back after dinner and found him nearly drunk, and told him to go home. He came back about 10 o’clock next morning, got pretty well drunk again, and I told him to go home. The witness then gave evilence with regard to the salt, sugar, tea, etc., and pro* duced the cheque made out to Lidsey, which was cashed over the counter of the bank. As regards the plan, Lidsey agreed to do it for 10s, and to get a job, but he would not work. He is a good carpenter, but not good at wheelwright work. To Mr Aspinail: It was before Lidsey went to work for me that I gave him the cheque which he cashed at Chamberlain's.

11 is Worship, after giving a lecture on not having an agreement, said that he would only allow 18 days and 2 hours at 10s per day, and would allow the amount claimed for plans, which would in all make £lO 14s. He would give Williams credit for the whole of his account, £9 12s 2d, and give judgment for plaintiff for £1 Is lOd and costs. The Court then rose.