RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1496, 22 April 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, April 20th, 1886. (Before R. fl. Postlethwaite, Esq., J. K.] , BREACH OP TOWN BOARD BY-LAWS. Harry Fly and Harry Cbivaraon, two youths, were charged with firing a gun within the town contrary to section 15 of By-law No. 2 and “ The Police Offences Act 1884." Constable W. Willoughby prosecuted, The prisoners were undefended, and pleaded guilty. R. H, Pearpoint, sworn, stated he was the Lieutenant in charge of the Volunteer camp on April 19, and having beard that it was the intention of several of the larrikins to make a raid on the qamp he had taken extra precautions. About half-past eleven he heard a gun fired and immediately ran out and ordered the men and sergeant to eomo up at the double. In the meantime the outposts who had seen the two prisoners go towards a white bridge on Dr Kish’s road had followed and caught them. The gun .was fired in the direction of Mr Berry’s brick kilo. Both of the prisoners got on to the road and denied ever having fired a gun. The outposts brought them back, and they were locked up in the guard tent. ■ He had sent out a search party, who had found the gun close to where the prisoners had got through the fence. It was a brech-loader and there was an empty cartridge in it. It bad been in bis possession till he handed it over to the police. (Gun produced). The prisoner Cbiverson used most obscene language when caught. The prisoner Cbiverson acknowledged being the owner of the gun, and having fired it. Both prisoners said they did not know they were doing any harm. They simply thought to have a lark by making the Volunteers turn out of their tents. Lieutenant Pearpoint said he did Dot wish to press for a heavy penalty—the simply wished to make it a caution to the prisoners and others of their class in future. Constable Willoughby stated he bad had complaints made to him of these boys before. He must ask for a conviction without a heavy penalty. Mr Postlethwaite gave the prisoners a severe lectare, addressing himself more particularly to Cbiverson on account of the obscene language he had used, and stated they had laid themselves open to a fine of £5. They would be fined, Chi verson in the sum of £1 6s, and Fly £l, with costs 7s each. This being all the business the Court rose. TEMUKA. Wednesday, April 21st, 1886. [Before J. .Keswick, Esq., R.M.] TRESPASS. Robert Lavery was charged with having on the 19th of April trespassed on the lands of Mr A. M, Clark in pursuit of game. Mr Aspinallappeared for the plantiff, and Mr Lynch for the defendant. A. M. Clark : 1 am in possession of the Arowheona property. On the day in question 1 saw two men on the property, and heard them fire three shots. The Overseer told me who they were. I saw them with game in (heir hands. 1 advertised that trespassers would be prosecuted. To Mr Lynch { Robert Lavery was one of the men; Hornbrook, who was my own shepherd, was the other. Never forbade Hornbrook to shoot, 1 ceuld not say whether the dog was Hornbrook’s or not. To.Mr Aspinall • I never gave Hornffrook leave to shoot. John McColl; On the day in question I went after the persons firing shots, and found Robert.Lavery and Thomas Hornbrook there. They had some hares and a swamp-hen killed. I never gave permission to shoot to Hornbrook. .To Mr Lynch ; I never told Hornbrook not to shoot. Hornbrook bad his dog with him. Thomas Hornbrook, called for the defence ; I have been a shepherd for Mr since August. I was shooting With Lavery on the day in question on Mr Coil’s land. I had permission to ■hoot on Mr Coil’s land, and as we were coming down L asked Lavery to come through Mr Clark’s property with me. It was at my invitation he came, 1 never was told not to shoot. I thought there would be no objection to my shoot-

ing. I have shot there frequently be* fore. 1 had one of my sheep dogs with me. The dog was used in working Mr OUrk'e sheep. To Mr Aspinall; 1 never got liberty to shoot, I admit having fired two or three shots. 1 never knew that Mr Clark advertised that trespassers would be prosecuted. Robert Lavery; 1 was with the last witness on Mr Coil’s property, and he asked me to go on Mr Clark’s property with him to catch his mare. 1 had no dog. I fired one shot there. I went on Hornbrook’s invitation. To Mr Aspinall: I never had permission from Mr ClarK to go on his property. His Worship said there was no doubt th«re was a trespass committed, but a small penalty would meet the case, tie would fine defendant 10a and costs, Thomas tiornbiook, similarly charged, pleaded not guilty. Mr Aspinall appeared for the complainant, and Mr Lynch for the defendant. Mr Lynch raised the point that the man could not be a trespasser on his master’s land. The defendant was called by the Bench, and he said that he kept the dog solely for the purpose of working sheep. He would not ailow the dog to go after hares or game, as it would spoil him. Mr Aspinall pointed out the naan had no permission to shoot. His Worship said the question as to whether a servant could trespass on his master’s land was a nice point. H*e would reserve it. Mr Lynch pointed out that the man was never told not to shoot. His Worship recalled the defendant, and questioned him with regard to the dog. He replied that the dog was solely used by him as a sheep dog; also that during the summer evenings be had frequently shot on the property. Mr Aspinall asked His Worship to ask witness how long he bad had the guo. Mr Lynch objected to' this question. Probably the next step would be to prosecute the man for carrying firearms without a license. In reply to the Court, the witness said be had the gun for five years. The Court reserved its decision, DRUNKENNESS. George Ramsay was charged with havng been drunk on the previous evening. —The defendant pleaded guilty, and was mulcted in a fine of ss. William Campbell was charged with having been crunk on the 17th of April. —He pleaded guilty, and was fined ss. TRESPASS ON THE RAILWAY. Rees Thomas, charged with having allowed 16 pigs belonging to him to wander on the railway, admitted the offence and was fined 20s and costs.

CIVIL CASES. K. F. Gray v. R. Flannagan—Claim £4 sa. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and judgment was given by default for the amount claimed and costs, Siegertand Fauvelv. Timothy Burke— Claim £6 15s. Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiff. J. Siegert gave evidence to the effect that the amount was due. The defendant never disputed the account. To the defendant: You spoke about a mistake, and I told you to come into the office to settle it, and you never came. T. Burke : I sent for 2a tea and I am charged for 2a 61 tea. I told Mr Fauvel ho was only to charge me 2r. I could get sugar at 4d, while they are charging me 4|d. Mrs Burke gave evidence to the effect that there was only £5 due. Judgment was given for £6 2s 9d. Mr Tosswill apphed for a rehearing of the case Aspinall v. Hetf rrnan, on the ground that the defendant was absent when the case was heard, being under the impression that it had deen adjourned for a fortnight, Mr Lynch pointed out that the defendant was represented by counsel. Hia Worship said he would not allow (he case to be reopened. Mr Lynch said he had no objection to the case being reopened and rehearing granted, provided the defendant paid the amount for which judgment had been given in Court. Mr Tosswill said he would pay the amount due since the date of (he bankruptcy of Heffernan. Hia Worship said the full amount for which judgment had been given should be paid into Court. Either he would have to accept the offer of the plaintiff, or no rehearing would be granted. The defendant declining the pay the full amount into Court the rehearing was refused.

Mr Lynch applied for costs for appearing to, resist the hearing, and it was allowed them. The Court then rose.