RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1535, 22 July 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tbmuxa—Wednesday, Jolt 21,1886. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.]. SCHOOL CASES. Wiliiam Bryant was charged, on the information of the Chairman of the Ternuka Public School Committee, with having neglected to send to school, within the space of six month*, th* child Marina Bryant, between the ages of 7 and 13 years, and residing, within two miles of the school, after having been served with a notice in writing (sent by the Chaiiman of the School Committee) to send the child to school. The defendant pleaded guilty. In extenuation he said his wife, Mrs Bryant, had not been well, and the child had to be kept away from school to look after the younger ones. In reply to His Worship, Mr Brown (the Chairman of the School Coinmi(tee) said the child bad attended 22 times out of a possible 200. The child w»s now attending school. His Worship said be would let the case stand over for a month, to let the defendant send the child to school. He would not dismiss it now, but would see bow the defendant acted, 1 While His Worship was delivering his judgment the defendant attempted several times to explaia or make some remarks, and was severely spoken to by His Worship, who said the defendant evidently wanted “ a little looking after.” Thomas Powell was also charged with neglecting to send his child, Thomas Powell, to school. The defendant admitted the charge, but said his wife had been very ill for nine or ten weeks, in fact bad only coma out of the hospital a week ago, and the boy had been kept at home to look After the other children. He had iight children, and five attended school. The child would attead regularly io future. His Worship said he thought the excuse a reasonable one, and as defendant said the child would now attend regularly the case would be dismissed. UNCONTROLLED DOG. Martin Melvin was charged, on the information of Alfred Nicholas, with having allowed a dog to attack him when on a public road, on the 14th July. The defendant said it was not on the public road, it was on private property. Alfred Nicholas, sworn, said ; I remember the 14th of this mouth, and I know where Martin Melvin lives. I passed his place on the 14th. I was on the road. I don’t know that it was the public road, but it was the road that every one uses. In reply to the R.M., the witness stated stated it was an unenclosed place. — Constable Morton said it was on the main leading from one part of Arowbenu* to another. The informatics was then amended to “ unenclosed placw,” and the witness con timed; I.' was coming down from our yard [Ackroyd’s slaughter yard], and was riding when the dog came out, and the horse “ played up.” I asked Mrs Melvin to tie the dog up, and she said I ought to go round by the road. The horso I was riding was a young one, and had only been ridden twice. The dog rushed up behind me. I was not thrown. To defendant; I was on a public thoroughfare when tbs dog came out. I am not in the habit of teasing the dog, nor am I in the habit of carrying a ptckstful of stones to throw at the dog, nor of cracking my whip at it once in a while. Constable Morton, sworn, said : I know the place; it is between Denmark and Alexandra streets, and it has been usvd for five years to go from one part, of Arowhenua to another. It is totally unfenced, and passes directly at the back of Melvin’s place. I know the dog to be a dangerous brut®. About two months ago the dog caused my horse to bolt when near Melvin’s—[At this moment defendant's dog hail a run round the Court, and his wife attempting to catch the animal got into “ hot water.” She was brought before His Worship, who sternly asked nljat she meant by bringing the dog into Court, and making no answer, was directed to lea vs the Court], Constable Morton then continued: The dog is a most persistent one for sticking at the heels of horses. I would have brought the case on at the time, but did not do so as it was myself, that was annoyed. To defendant; The place is a general road from one part of Arowhonua to another. It is the shortest track, and the most convenient one. Martin Melvin : I am the defendant. When I got the place I am living in there was no other place near me, but lately other places hare began to come round me and block me up. The road also passes near my place, and I keep a dog to frighten the cattle away, and to wake me up at night if they come around tny place. [To His Worship the witness stated he kept cattle, and the land next to his place was private property, but did not belong to him.—Hie Worship said that in that case anyone had as much . right there as he had]. Witness continued ; The man who laid the information always teases the dog. Sometimes when he comes past my place from the slaughteryard he brings half a dozen horses with him, and my children are frightened and knocked about. His Worship said that had nothing to do with the case. If his children were knocked about, he had his remedy in the Court. Mrs Melvin : lam wife of the defendant, The plaintiff was running across at a fast pace on his horse. My children wore out with the dog, and there was another dog with it. Plaintiff pointed at mine and said, “ Keep it in,” and he also said he would shoot it. I said, “Go away; you are on private property.” There was another dog with it.

Hi* Warship said it was plain the dog was a groat nuisance to persons on horse* back. He # knaw what it was when on horseback. # The defendant' must keep the dog properly controlled. It was n«t sufficient to keep it off the road, but under proper control meant so that it could not get off his property. The defend* at had no more right on the property thi.n Nicholas. He would not inflict u heavy fine, as bethought the case was brought as a warning. Defendant would be flned ss, with costs, and must keep the dog under proper control, and be careful that he did not appear again. He bad rendered himself to liable to a fine of £5, and it might be inflicted next time he appeared. CIVIL CASE. H. Williams r. W, Robertson—Claim £1 Os fid, balance of account for repairs to « buggy. Mr Posswill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for the defendant, Plaintiff deposed that he repaired a buggy for the defendant, and when it was delivered he gave him a bill for it, as it was agreed that it should be paid on the completion of the job. Defendant said he had only £5, and as he wanted to pay another account he could not pay him that day. He said he would be down in a week. The charges were fair and reasonable. He rendered the account several times. Defendant’s first objeclion to the account was on May 18th, on the first of which month he sent the account and intimated it would be sued for if not settled. Defendant paid £l, and said witness had charged too • much for certain work, as Carson would have done it for less. He said he could not help that, as that was his price. On J uly 3rd saw defendant again, and called him in. He waved hi* hand, and said he would call again. He called in the evening, and said witness had not sent in his account. Witness gave it to him. He did not open it but asked the amount and was told £1 Oa 6d. He said he would pay it on the Monday. Mr Aspinall cross-examined the plaintiff as to why he had put three blocks in the buggy when the defendant only ordered two, and as to the charges disputed. Witness said he had put in three blocks because he found they were necessary, and he considered the other charges were fair. _ . James Taylor testified to being present at the interview between the plaintiff and defendant on July 3rd, and corroborated the plaintiff’s evidence, William Robertson, the defendant, said when the plaintiff got the buggy, before he ever touched it, he was partly paid. - He painted an American waggon for £3 ss. Told defendant what to do to the buggy. Told him to put in two blocks and ha put in three. He could not remember dates, but when Williams sent the bill he mislaid it, and he wrote and asked for another, which was not sent. Plaintiff afterwards gave him _ a bill and said it was one pound and sixpence. Witness said he would pay as soon as he knew what was coming to him, and have it settled. Never intended to pay in full. His instructions as to the buggy were not carried out. In cross-examination the witness said he had the work clone to the buggy valued. He objected to some of the material used as it was too common. To His Worship he said when paying on account he did not say he would pay so much on such items, and object to the. others. William Canon, a wheelwright at Winchester, gave evidence as to the value of the work done. He considered plaintiff would have been well paid if he had got £7 for the job. Counsel briefly addressed the Court. Mr Aspinall held that plaintiff had exceeded his instructions, and that according to Carson’s evidence plaintiff had already been overpaid. Mr Tosswill pointed out that defendant did not object to the charges until *jx month* had elapsed. He had also paid money on account, and ho hold that put him out of Court. His Worahip said it would be dangerous to allow accounts to be reopened after such a length of time, and which were not objected to at firit. He did not think it would be right to say the charges were excessive because another tradesman now said ho would do the I work for lass, Defendant should have f disputed the account at the time, stating that he objected to such and such items when ho paid money on account. Defendant had also paid money on account, and therefore judgment would be for the plaintiff withjcosts. The Court then rose.