RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1502, 21 October 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gebaldine—Mondat, Oct\ 18, 1886. [Before 1 H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M., the Revi, G. Barclay and Dr Fisb, and EL W. Moore and A. H. Brisco, Esqs., J. P.'s.] ' The following extended reportMonda'y's of proceedings at the K.M. Court, Geraldine, was crowded out of our last issue : - JUDGMENT SUMMONS. * T.Tilson.v.J. Joe-Claim £l3 6s.— Judgment summons. This case was adjourned from last Court day to allow plaintiff to prove thai defendant had been in a position to pay since the judgment had been obtained ngainßt him. Plaintiff could not do this,, and the Bench declined to make an order. ASSAULTS. Crocker v. Armstrong. Mr Raymond asked for this case to be adjourned till next Court day, which was done, the Bench advising the parties to endeavor to settle the matter before them if possible. A. Metcalf xs,e charged with assaulting Henry Collier oh October 9th, at Orari Flat. Mr Raymond «pp«ar«d for defendant.

Dr Fifth being a witness in this case left the Bench. Defendant pleaded not guilty. H. Collier, sworn, said: £ remember the evening of October 9th. About 5 o'clock that evening I was in Mr Metcalf's paddock. I went there with a dead turkey. As I bad turkeys poisoned, about £6 worth, r went over to him and began to call out to him about it and he came out m ith a long stick. !; I was about four or five chains from the house on his land. He came running with a stick in both hands. He Said I hsvtri:gotr~jm in my paddock, you old -rrr*:* and I will murdtr you. He struck at °my 'btiad with the stick. I receiy,e4..J»he_bJS]!L-2Hi. in y- arni » I.then to my head, and he me till he disabled my left arm, and then caught me. several blows on the left side -, of; the head.'' I t^en 1 , dropped the turkey, and .he hit me bri ' *he right side of the head and felled me. I was not actually stunned but giddy. I fell on my left side, and said "You coward, to use a stick to an old man like me ; 'you have poisoned all ray things and now you will murder me.", Then he kicked me in the back, and said, "You o'd i—, if I have not murdered jyou, I will." He then kickrd me on the ribs, and went away and left me, and my wife c*me to mt. When he struck uie with the stick.l called out "murderj" and,said "you haye broke my arm. , ~_ , , , r •To Mr Raymond,:; There'aie other neighbors about beside 'Metcalf. I was going to him with, the dead,turkey to call his attention to it as he, has been in the habit of laying poison. It web laid in a , train. I think my turkey got poisoned by going on to his land and getting the poison. .1 have never been on bad terms with Mr Metcalf for'this last five years., I, was bound over to ; keep the peace to Mr Metcalf about six years ago. We were not oo good terms since I ignored him altogether, f bad no stick when I went. I called loudly when I called out to +hem. There was no one about that,l could see, but I called them, the poisoners, to come out and'see what they bad done. I was in a very excited state. I could not Bee the house, and I did not know that he was there. 1/did not think be would,come out and treat rne in that barbarous manner. .1 am qaite certain £ had not got a stick! '\% did 1 i6t ! tell him to come on> I was ready, for 'him. I did not offer to fight., , are over/1 have never said a word to him about the turkeys being poisoned,' although they have been poisoned for the .last five weeks. ■"•,;: : : ;. l:> ']■. '>' To His Worship: Id five weeks he his poisoned £6 worth. Turkeys are worth from 7s 6d to Bs. To Mr Raymond: I did not know whether he would come out or not. I aav some children about they were hia children. . s ! * Worship :' Idid 'not'do a single thing. I have not been a fighting man in my days.' I never was a pugiliet. I meant when 1 said my fighting, were over that lam too old., I was bound over to keep the peace for threatening him. Mary Ann Collier, wife of the last witness, sworn, said : 1 remember the evening of the 9th October. I knew my husband had gone o f ver to I heard my husbabd call out'"Oh, oh," twice. Tha distance would be about 400 yards. While crossing the paddoek I heard Metcalf say he would murder him. : .When I,got through the fence .Metcalf was kickibg him ahd'calliog him bad names. I told him to leave off. I went back to see if I could get assistance. Wben I got back back I turned round and saw my husband .coming over to me and went back to meet bim, I then led him home, washed his wounds, aod sent for & doctor. > ■ ■■';■■■"'> '■ i To Mr Raymond :* I did not see the .commencement of the row. The price of fowls would be about 3s per pairj but I can't say. These 'turkeys would be worth' 6s 6d, 7s, and 8a each in Timaru. I received _that for them. We did not sell the best, oßly the young ones. " ! 3s 6d Js not a good price at,our farm. We get 5s at the f arm,:'; ii/ - ,)f4 - Dr'Fish, sworn, said : Oo Saturday night, October 9tb, at about half-past eight, I received a message to go and see Collier. I wen,t ,at once. 1' found him lying oh the bed complaining of a severe pain. He had a lacerated Vound on the left side of his head, aod his left wrist and lower pnrt of his arm was much swollen. The right.side of his face was also a good deal swollen, and there was a bruise about five inches loDg between the shoulders, extending nearly up to the neck. He also complained of a good deal of pain in the lower part of his back. [ saw him again on the Monday morning and there was a good deal of bruising. The wound on the head was certainly a bad one. To the'Bench :• The wounds were not dangerous. They could, fiet be inflicted without a violent blow. A stick would make those kind of woundf. A fall might have caused them, but not between the shoulders. I thought he was suffering agooddeal of pain. < Mr Raymond submitted, th.st c the party assaulted was the person to. lay the information. Mr Willoughby "must be> authorised to lay it ,by writing frora>\ a Justice of the Peace. Under the Jnstices-of the Peace .Act he would ask the case to b« dismissed. Constable Willoughby submitted that having airested defendant he wae bound to lay the information. The Bench thought the police were quite justified in laying the information in such cases. ; .; .; j;;:;;/ A. Metcalf, sworn, said : On the night of October 9 1 had been away all day and came home between threte and four o'clock. 1 was sitting by tie fire in my own house when my aft'enWbn was called by my little boy to the' fact'that Collier was using very bad language' towards me. I could not see him calling put,, but I came outside arioV went af few yardß 1 could see him. He.also used disgusting expressions /with .regard to..my wife (expressions repeated). He 'had a stick ia one hand and a dead turkey'in the other. Seeing that he had a stick, and I had to go past the wood, heap, .I took a small stick about as thick; as )iny finger. I ■ then-weut to Collier,| and ]■. .asked him a what he was doing using such language towards me aqd my wife. . I said if you don't clear off my preraiaea I will kick you off; He put himself in a, defensive attitude, and said, "Come oh, : I am ready for yeu." I insisted l ion. his going off. He tried to defend' limsslf with a stick, and the turkey, and tried to pick up stones. I hit him with the stick and sometimes gave him a prop with the left hand. X

never bit him down. I never gave him any provocation to come on my land. I never laid poiaoned grain on his land. • His turkeys and fowls were in the habit of. coming on my land. The filthy language he was using in the hearing of my wife and children justified me, I thought, in putting him off. The language line been going on since the time has expired that he was bound over to keep the peace for. My children are all of tender yearn. To witness : You had a stick. Margaret Frances Metcalf, wife of de- '■•.' fendant, sworn, said : On the evening of the 9tb »y husband was sitting in the house. Inconsequence of what the boy said my husband went out and I heard Collier calling my husband and me the words my husband haß just said. I did not see the first, but I saw Collier trying ' to get up stones, but he did not got one. To plaintiff: I aver that yon did say what has been said. ... Defendant called his son, but he was too.ypungtobe sworn. Samuel Gould, sworn, said : I am b . neighbor of both these parties, and saw the row. • I Jfin '"her the words used by Collier. 'l-*> words repeated by Metcalf are the same as I heard in the paddock. : X could not see the wife and children. I had heard similar words about five weess ago. 1 was at my gate. If people had been on the road they could h*ve heard the words. L To plaintiff: I never heard you use any of both these parties. I remember the bad language till the poisoning started. I beard you use the language to his wif-. "I saw Metcalf assault you with a stick. but was too far away to see if you had a To Mr Raymend : The words were used -j before the assault, /Alexander McLean : lam a neighbor fyh inst. I was coming home and heard Collier aioging out. I did not hear the language used on this occasion, but did about five weeks ago. [Witness repeated the words he had heard used to Mrs Metcalf about five weeks ago.] ; ' Mr Raymond pointed out that Collier had contradicted his own statements, and also that Beveral statements made by him had been exaggerated, and proved false. He submitted that the case should .be dismissed, as defendant was perfectly jastified* in removing Collier from the place on account of the language he was using. There were some cases he said . where a man should receive a good thrashing and even homecide was justfiable in some instances. The Bench retired for a few moments, and upon returning stated " that they were unanimous in thinking that the police were quite right in taking this case up. They wished it to be distinctly understood that they did not and would not encourage people in taking the law into their own bands, but at the same time they could not conceive a case where a man ought to receive a thrashing more so than when a man had used such language to another's wife.; They were very sory that a cross-action . had not been taken, so that all parties . couldbe bound over to keep the peace. The case would be dismissed, but they cautioned them both to take good care that nothing of the kind occurred in the future as they would be well looked after. H. B. Jones v.J. Tindall.— In thia caae the plaintiff charged the defendant, who assists his mother, the licensee of a hotel at Hilton, with assault. Tindall,v. H. B Jones.—This was a croas-action arising out of the other, in which the defendant in the former case sued the plaintiff for disorderly conduct in a licensed house, and refusing to leave 'when called upon t& do so. Dr Poster appeared for Jones, and Mr , Raymond for Tindall. , H. B. Jones, sworn, stated that on Oct. 9tb, about 7 p.m., he went to the hotel,; In consequence of something he had| heard in Timaru, for a set'lenient of an account for £lO. which had been standing for some time. He asked the son if bad spoken to his mother about it, and, upon getting a reply in the negative, said he woald have to summons if it was not paid. He would rather have it v settled quietly than have to summons. ' lindall then said he would Btrike him, and he did so. Plaintiff was bleeding, ' and stunned. He went to give his face a wash, and defendant followed him and struck and stonned him. Mrs Tindall came up the passage, and said "Give it to him, Jack." Plaintiff heard the words «e he was Btunned but not deaf. A man taaißad Davey came and took him outsid* and>ashed bis face. Plaintiff was quite sober at the time. That was all that happened, and be took out the summons. His little boy was there when that happened. To Mr Raymond: I had been into " Timaru. Had two or thiee glasses, in f and a glass at TindalFs. 1 did ~ not use any bad language. The only "■ provocation was what I stated. I got a good many blows when.l was down. I did not tell anyone that it served me right what I got. The debt has been going on for over twelve months. Young Tindall did not ask me to leave the hotel. To the Beuch : The reason I did not go "'.•way out of his reach was because I did no* think he was going to strike me. To Mr Raymond : I did not break some bottles, nor the hinge of the trap in the bar ; it has been broken for over twelve months. I did not bite young Tindall. Constable WMoughby, sworn, said he was sent for about half-past ten. From ths letter he inferred that someoue had " been seriously injured. Went over and caw Jones suffering from some bruises of the face and blood was in his ears. Te Mr Raymond: The general character of Jones id that he is a great man for drink. All the rows in that district in '■'.'the'.hotels since I have been here have been caused by Jones. He bad never known him come from Timaru sober 3 but on this occasion he had heard he was pot drattlc - ' John Tindall, sworn, said :I am the son ,of Mrs Tindall who keeps the hotel at .Hilton. When Jones came into the hotel ;be had had a good few drinks. When be came in he started about my seeking work lor another blacksmith ever since the other blacksmith had come to tlio place, 1 He said mother had been doing him as much barm as she could. He also used • names with regard to my mother (names repeated). I told him to use better language. He spoke about his.bill, and I told him it had nothing to do with me, He then picked up a jug and threatened to throw it at me. He struck me on the chin. We then had a bit of a Bcnfn>, and he got hold of my finger with his teeth. He would not let go when I asked him to and X atruok bin.

To Dr Foster: I did not serve him with any drink ;it was my sister. If I had seen him first in tin state in which he was I, would not havtt served him with the drink, Be struck me first. I did Dot strike him as he leaned on his hand on the couuter. The trap was not broken becanse I screwed it on the d»y before. He was sjoing to strike me with a jug and I took it from him. There was a contra account, and he was in debt to my mother. To the Bench : He wag swearing about the account at tbe time. W. Davoy deposed : I #ent over to the hotel as Mrs Tindall had sent for me. Before I went over I heard a crash. Iheard Tindall say "Let me go or T will strike you." I asked " What's up.' Tindall said "He has bitten my finger off.", Witness described what he saw of the occurrence, which was substantially cori oborative of Tindall's evidence. Jane Tindall, swoti said; I am the licensee of the hole- .t Hilton. Jones and 1 have a running account. He is greatly in my debt. (Witness' evidence was about the same as that of the two previous witnesses.) To Dr Foster: I sent my account to Jones when be rendered his. The Bench was of opinion that the evidence of the Tindalls was preferable to that of Jones. The assault had not been proved, and, therefore, tbe case would be dismissed. For Jones' breach of the licensing law he would he fined 40s and costs, with witnesses' expenses. This being all the cases, the Court adjourned. Wednesday, October 20. (Before R. H. Pearpoint and H. W. Moore, Eeqs., J.P.'e) Henry Edward Curry, a boy of abeut 14 years of age, was charged with having stolen a war medal from the house of George Fox, of Geraldine. The accused pleaded guilty. G. Fox stated that the boy bad asked for a lift in his express on the road from Orari, and he had given him one. The boy had told him a pitiful tale about his present position and his parents being dead, and out of pity he (Fox) gave him shelter for the night and told him he could stop there the next day, The boy, however, took advantage of bis absence, and made off with the medal. Thereupon he put the police upon his track, and Constable Willoughby succeeded in arresting him with the medal in bis possession. The case was adjourned for 48 hours, to allow the police time to receive a report as to the boy's character, etc. TEMTJKA. Wbdkesday, Oct. 20th, 1886. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] LABCBNT. Daniel Bryant was charged with having on the 29th of September stolen a vest from Mr H. T. Clinoh. The evidence was taken on the previous Court day, and the case adjourned as the acoused's father was not in a fit state to appear before the Court. The father was now called, end said he did uot want to give evidence, but his daughter would. H. T. Clinch, recalled by the Court: lam quite positive the vest was not folded up with the trousers and coat. Dolly Bryant, nine years of age, gave evidence to the effect that she was in an empty house, and found a parcel amongst some rubbish. She took the parcel home. There was brown paper on it, and there was writing on the brown paper. Her father gave the brown paper to Constable Guerin. His Worship said this put a new complexion on the case. Where wss the paper? Cxnstable Morton said it had been handed into Court. Hii Worship had no recollection of it. However, he was fully satisfied the boy stole the vest, and he would send him to the Industrial School. He was, however, over 16 years, and he did hot know whether he had the power. He would adjourn the case. At the rising of tbe Court he asked Messrs Aspinall and Raymond whether they knew any clause in Act that met the case, and on finding nothing to his satisfaction turn up, he said he would adjourn the cbbo for a week. Constable Morton wanted to know what to do with the accused. He felt sure that if kept in Temuka he would not go away. He wished to know whether he ought to take him toTimaiu. His Worship thought he could be kept in Temuka, but on hearing that there was not proper provision for bis oustody, he said—- " Oh, I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll give him a month in gaol. Btand up prisoner. You are committed for one month in tbe Timaru goal." CIVIL CASES. ,' Judgment by default was given in the following cases: — . J. W. Miles v. H. Godwin—£4 17s 4d. W. McCann v. M. Aherne—Claim £2 10s. Hayes and Co. v. H. Eodgers—Claim £l7s. Joseph Lewis v. Eli Mitchell—Claim £l2. Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Tosswill for defendant. Joseph Lewis: lam the owner of saction 35071, Opihi river-bed. It was in Cross' possession. I told Cross Mitchell could have it for £lO, and Cross let it to him for £8 a . year. In March, 1885, he paid CroBS the rent. He says new he paid six months to Cross. I told him he had no right to pay Cross, and be said he did not recognise me at all in it. He offered me money provided I would give him a receipt for the previous six months. To Mr Tosswill: Let the land to Cross at £lO a year, from year to year. • Cross gave some agreement to Mitchell, but I do not recognise it at all. I am prepared to deny that I had not seen Mitchell before the first half year's rent was paid. Cross is my son: in-law. This was the case for the plaintiff, and Mr Tosswill explained that the defence would be that Cross let the land to Mitohell, and Mitchell recognised Cross only as his landlord. Eli Mitchell stated that he met Cross in Temuka and Cross offered him the land for £lO. Understood the lapd. belonged to Cross and it was on that understanding that aptness entered into an agreement to pay £8 a year for it. Ha was occupying tho land. Cross filed 12 months before witness took the land. Cross kept cattle on tbe land in the meantime, apd other peoples' cattle were there. Witness did not know whose cattle they were. Never saw Lewis before paying the first half year's rent. Before the second half year paymept came on Lewis told witness not to pay Cross as the land belonged to him (Lewis). Told Lewis he co*!d recognise only Orofs. ; Cross met witness afterwards Bnd he said Lewi* had nothing to do with it, and that he (Cross) was the man to pay. Witness paid him. Cross met witness in Temuka afterwards and gave witness an order to pay Lewis, but Lewis said witness would }>&?• to pay the . baok rent paid to Cross,

io Mr Aspinall: Cross said he was sent round lo try and get. some one to take the latjd. He did not say it was Lewis who sent him. He said the laHd was his own. It is not true that I said in Mr Aspinall's offioe that Cross said that Lewis had sent him to let rhe land. When the land was bought I heard that Cross, Lewis, and Brans were in it. Never took steps to find out that Cross had any claim on it. Did not know whether the cattle driven by Cross to the land belonged to Lewis or to Cross. After Lewis sent me a notice I offered him £4. At this stage His Worship paid the only question was as to whether Croßß had any right to let the land. Thos. Thornly gave evidence to the effect tb.it he was present when Mitchell offered Lewis £4. Counsel on both sides having addressed -the Court, His Worship said he would hare no besitatiemn giving judgment for plaintiff for the amount olaimed and costs. G. Edgeler t. P. Wareing—Olaim £3 10s. Mr Tosswill appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. The plaintiff stateJ he had done work for which he claimed. Mr Wareing asked witness to agree to do the work for 12 months, but witness did not do so. To Mr Aspinall: Got a oopy of the supposed agreement. Never agreed to the agreement. Eeceived £5 for work done according to the hours at 9d per hour. Never asked Mr Wareing for a rough copy of the agreement. On the 10th September defendant spoke about cutting the grass, and plaintiff said he would if he wanted to. The defendant complained that witness was not getting on fast enough, to His Worship : It was by the hour I was paid when Mr Wareing gave me the £5. Philip Wareing gave evidence to the effect that he esked the plaintiff how muoh he wanted for keeping his garden in repair, and be said 10s a week or £25 a year. Offered £2O a year, and next day he came and accepted it. He asked for a rough copy of an agreement, and witness gave it to him. Plaintiff came and gave witness a bill "To work done in vour garden, as per agreement," and witness gave him a cheque for £5. Could not deny that he had not worked the number of hours he claimed for. W. Ashweli gave evidence to the effect that he heard the plaintiff and defendant talking. Mr Edgeler said, " When I entered into that contract I took into consideration the work I had to do, but not the worry to which I have been subjected." His Honor said that there appeared to have been some sort of an agreement, and would give judgment for the defendant. J?. B. Oldfield v. Ackroyd and Quinn— Claim £2O 6s 6d. Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for the defendants. Mr Raymond explained that the esse had been brought under section 22 of the Fenoing Act 1881. F. R. Oldfield : I was owner of rural section 2743. I left it od the 14th of May, 1886. The defendants had a section on the opposite side of the road from mine. They had a fence across the road, but no fence on i their side. The fence was about 64 ckains. The paddocks were for grazing. They made 14 chains of fence, but they left gateways "open, and pat no gates up. They used the road for grazing cattle. It is a public road very seldom used. I made a fence and kept it in repair. It was a good solid fence. Claimed interest on the cost of making and repairing the fence. To Mr Aspinall: Never gave the defendants notice. Asked them to keep the fence in order, and they cut a few chains of it. Tossed up with the defendants as to who should have the choice half of the fenoe to repair. Did not ask them for their Bhare of the beneficial use of the fenoe, for this law was not in force then. Never knocked a gate down or removed it, and never gave instructions to do so. The fence put up by defendants was not serviceable. Made out the price of fence by what it would cost to do it. I employed men to do the work, I asked Quinn to do bis share of the work, but as he did not do it I did it myself. Andrew Gibson valued the fence referred to at £1 per chain, and gave a description of the fence. The witness was cross-examined by Mr Aspinall as to how he arrived at the value. John Flemraing valued the fence at £1 per ohain. Michael Quinn : Am in partnership with Mr Ackroyd. About the time referred to the fence was in a weak state, and Ackroyd and I met the plaintiff. We allotted the fence into halves, and I tossed up a coin as to choice of halves, and won. Nothing was said about us raying interest on the cost of the fence. We let the contract of keeping the fence in repair to Cope the Maori. In consequence of a gateway having been cut down by Oldfield we made a. fenoe on our own land. I "think a fence like Oldfield's could be made for 10s. The plaintiff cut the fenoe the first year, but took it coolly since. To Mr Raymond : I do not use the road for grazing now. Ido not know how many wires there are in it, or how many standards, and have not examined it personally. I have allowed for No. 8 wires, and I could erect a better fence for 10s. I have not allowed for a cable wire. W. Ackroyd corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. The value of the fence was 10s or lis. Oldfield did not keep the fence in repair. Witness then said : 1 have nothmg at all to do with this. I am not in partnership with Quinn in this matter. To Mr Raymond : I run cattle with Mr Quinn. The Btandnrds are worth 3id a piece. We paid for cutting the fence 3 years. James Scott saw part of the fence. Had 20 years' experience and estimated the fence would cost 12s or 12s 6d. A shilling a chain would have repaired it. Gearge Dyson : I measured the fenoe, It was 33 chains 43 links. I only measured the part adjoining the Education Reserve. Cope, a Maori, stated that he repaired the fence in 1882,1383, and 1884. Oldfield did not keep bis share repaired. Pur some barb wire on Oldfield's side. .To Mr Raymond : Cannot say what part of the year 1888 I took the fence. After counsel had addressed the Court His Worship said he would reserve his de? oision. The Court then rose.