RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1556, 14 September 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geualdinb—Monday, Sept. 13, 1886 [Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M., and H. W. Moore, R. H. Pearpomt A. H. Brisco, and G. J. Dennistonu, Esqs., J.P.’s.] CIVIL CASES. A. Macdonald v, M. Garrick—-Claim £5, for damages sustained by plaintiff through defendant driving several hors.s from property ot plaintiff. , Mr White appeared for plaintiff. J. Macdonald, sworn, stated: On the 29tb July the defendant had my horses bailed np on a public road fronting his'sect ion. There is no fence between the road and bis section, I don’t know how they got on (lit* road. They could not have got there wiibout a gate from Mr Wigley’s run having been opened. [A tracing of a map of the district was put in to explain the position of the parties’ laud,j There was a gate on the road facing the defendant’s land. The road runs bt tween defendant’s section and Messrs Jobbderns an Rice’s. I went on that date and put them back on my own land. I made an arrangement with Mr Wigley that the cattle should run on both onr sections without impounding, as both onr sections were nnfenced. On the 30tb I found the horses in Mr Slack’s paddock. The gates most have been opened for the horses to get through on to Mr Slack’s land. They would have to he Jet tbrongli three gates, the first being defendant’s, If they had not got through the defendant’s gates they could not have got through to Mr Slack’s. On tbeSOtb 1 again pul them l on my own land, and stopped with ! them till late in the evening. I went j back to the horses After eating something. I camped out all night watching, the horses. 1 went during the night to see if the defendant’s gafea were all closed. Defendant’s land is divided .into three, paddocks. The first | paddock is nearest to my land. During , the night 1 went to see if the gates leading from these paddocks were closed. They were all closed, but there was a gap in the first paddock. A little before daylight 1 heard a noise as if a hurdle were thrown down. This was on the iborniDg of the 31st, In about 20 hamutes afterwards I went to. see what caused the noise, and I found the gate |broWn open, I did not go at once to gee who opened the gate because I suspected who it was, Ihe horses came down as soon as it waa daylight, and stood at the place where the hurdle was knocked down, Then they went along the fence to the gale near to the defendant’s. Defendant came out and sang out to his son to have an eye to the horses then went To the gate on to the road, and the defendant came from his bonse, and in a minute or so 1 saw the horses running through the gate. Ibe defendant then turned back and sang out to bia son to bnnt them down the road. Then the next gate was opened. Defendant’s wife and daughter were at the gate with a sledge and horses. When I saw the horses let through I did net lake any further trouble about them. I found them hack next mornr jug on mj own land beyond Mr slack’s. They could pot have got back to my place without being put out of Mr Black’s land, and then they would have to go three or four miles. Mr Slack’s jaddock is well fenced. My horses were on a place well grassed. They got considerably impoverished by being aw»y t They ware away three whole

days. They have depreciated to the extent of 10s each ; that would be £3 10s. I value mv time and trouble at £2.

D f ndant stated that lie had been summoned in the wrong name.

Piaintifif to defendant : I put tic horses hack to Mr Wigley’s land. I took them away from your land at about 12 o’clock. I did not see you when I took the horses. I have about 20 acres of land in the gully. I pay tin* rates for it. I saw the ga'es closed the night I saw you. 1 saw y< u going towards the gate and I saw the horses going through. Defendant, sworn, said ; I remember the morning of the 29th July. I fouud seven homes in my paddock when I got • ii>. They remained there some time, Thev were not there at night. The next morning they were again in the paddock. They were trying to get out. They were ,i 'ho gate when the children were going to school, and were let out by the wife nd children. I don’t know anything

bout the case. I did not not think of i.fmding this action. I thought it was II a bottla of smoke. I stopped a* home m the 29th for the purpose of impound'■>g them. I did not impound them as I do not care to impound any man’s horses.

Mr White pointed out that defendant /•mild have impounded the horses if they were troubling him. He had no to drive the horses out. Mr White submitted that defendant had neither denied the charge brought ag iinst him, nor had tie elicited anything from the plaintiff disproving the charge. After a short retirement for consideration the Bench nonsuited the plaintiff. J. Gaby y, M. Harris—Claim £29 14*. Mr White appealed for the plaintiff. Plaintiff, upon being sworn, staled that he had seen the defendant at Invercargill, when defendant had paid him a sum of £2O by cheque on account of a debt of £SO, and that defendant had promised to -ee him in Geraldine and pay the remaining £3O. After this defendant had to'd plaintiff that ho had filed but had not pur his (plaintiffs) name on the list of creditors. Six months after the payment of the £2O defendant had paid another 6s. Mr White put in a letter which had been received in answer to a letter written by Mr C. E. Sherratt asking for the money to be paid, The letter shown by Mr White tacitly acknowledged the claim.

Mr C. E. Sherratt was sworn, and proved writing to defendant, and also the receipt of the letter put in. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs, and solicitor’s fee. Morrison and Dunlop v. E. O’Connor - Claim £6 9s 4d.

Mr White appeared for plaintiffs. N. Dunlop and R. Morrison were sworn, and proved the amount of the claim. E. Logan waa also called, and proved the delivery of the goods. Defendant stated that he had been in partnership with others for ploughing, and had given orders that many of the articles should be charged separately to the individual members of the firm according as they ordered them, Mr G. J. Deonistoun was called by defendant, but his evideoco was immaterial. Judgment waa given for plaintiffs for amount claimed, with costs and solicitor’s fee. Half to be paid in one month and the ballancein anotser month. AFFILIATION. Mary Ann Shaw applied for an order compelling her father, Jonathan Shaw, to contribute towards the support of liar illigetimate child. Applicant had been confined of a female child in July last which was still living. The father of the child was James Harmar. The last time petitioner heard of him he was in Sydney. She had made no attempt to compel him to contribute towards its support as she knew he was there and she could not reach him. She had another child before this. It was about two years old. Petitioner paid half cost of its support, and her father the other half. To the Bench : She had no means of support except by going out as a general servant. She was willing to take.a place when she had made arrangements for the care of the child. J. Shaw, the defendant, stated that he was quite unable to provide for the child. Be had been providing for half the cast of the other. The police stated that they had brought the case up as the parties had come and enquired as to what was to be done with the child. His Worship said he had no power to make such an order. An exactly similar case had come- up in England, and he would look the matter up. The Industrial Schools Act provided for such cases. The case was adjourned till the 27th, pending His Worship’s investigation. OBSCENE L4.50D4.08. A first offender was charged with this offence in a public place. Defendant pleaded guilty, and stated be had taken too much liquor, and was not aware of what he did. He hoped that the Bench would deal leniently with him. He had taken the pledge and he would take care it never occmred again. Defendant was severely reprimanded, and warned that if he appeared again he would be severely punished. He was then dismissed, promising not to offend again. This being all the business the Court adjourned till the 27th inst.