RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1619, 11 August 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temdka—Wednesday, August 10, 1887. [Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., E.M.] lAKCBNT. :

■William Willis was charged with the larceny of tea, sugar, and sundry other articles and 3s 6d in cash from the tent of William Johnson, ploughing contractor, Waitohi Flat. Herbert Timson was charged with being an accomplice in the said theft. From the evidence of William Johnson, it appeared that he had’ missed the articles enumerated from his tent on the Waitohi Downs, on Friday, August Sth. He had seen two men prowling about and . heard that the accused were camped in a deserted hut of Alexander Allen’s, near where he (witness) was working. He could not identify the accused. Constable Stanley depos°d to arresting the accused at Baincliffe. The lad Timson was about to make a statement when the elder prisoner stopped him, saying that anything he

said would be used against him. He found none of the stolen property on either of the accused. The case was dismissed. . VAOKBANCY.

William Willis was further charged with haying no lawful visible means of support. For the prosecution, Constable Morton called

Herbert Timson, who stated that on Monday, August Ist, he saw accused near his father’s house. He (witness) left his home that day and camped with Willis in Mr Brown’s paddock. The following day they went to the Waitohi Downs and stopped in an unoccupied hut of Alexander Allen’s. They subsequently camped in a stone kut near Mr Young’s, and then went to Pleasant Point, where they slept in an empty house belonging to Mr Saunders. Willis obtained provisions at various farmers’ houses during the time he was with him and also received a shilling from a gentleman at Pleasant Point. From Pleasant Point they went to Eaincliffe, where they were arrested.

This evidence was corroborated by Evan Chapman and A. Allen. For the defence

William Willis stated that he was looking for work. He did not carry his swag for the purpose of loafing. His Worship had no doubt the,, accused was one of th )se disreputable persons who travelled the country loafing upon industrious people, and bringing respectable working men into disrepute. His offence in this case was aggravated by his having seduced a mere lad from his home. He would inflict the highest penalty the law allowed. Accused would he committed to gaol for three months. His Worship pointed out to Timson the narrow escape he had had, and cautioned him to he more careful of his Conduct in future. MAINTENANCE. Thomas Thornley v. Samuel Hayes. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff and Mr White for the defence. This was a case in which Thomas Thornley applied for an order against Samuel Hayes for the maintenance of the latter’s mother. Before the case was proceeded with Mr White objected to the case being heard on the ground that the defendant lived at Leeston, and the case should have been beard there.

His Worship but after hearing Mr Aspinall he decided to let the case proceed, talcing a note of Mr White’s objection. Mr Aspinall called Thomas Thornley, farmer, Waitohi Flat, who stated ha was a son-in-law of Mrs Hayes, who had resided with him for over fifteen years. Mrs Hayes was over 80 years of age and completely bedridden. .• She required a nurse and medical comforts. Defendant had contributed for some time towards the support of his mother, and eight years ago, when plaintiff left North Canterbury and came to reside in the Temuka district, had promised to pay 10s per week towards her maintenance^, This promise had not been fulfilled. He (witness) had applied to him on several different occasions, and had received ss ; per week for a few weeks. Defendant had a good leasehold farm of about 150 acres at South brook, and was in a position to pay the amount promised. In cross-examination witness said he was aware defendant had seven children, but he (plaintiff) had nine. Did not know that defendant was a loser by his farm, or that he had paid £IOO for medical attendance on his wife, who was a confirmed invalid, Ann Johnson, sister of defendant, who appeared much distressed, corroborated last witness’ statement as to her brother’s means. She always considered that he was in a good position. He had received the proceeds from the sale of the stock on his father’s farm, and his present farm was a good one. For the defence, Mr “White submitted that the defendant, although holding a comparatively good farm, was really in bad circumstances, and could barely pay his way. He was quite unable to pay towards his mother’s support. He called Samuel Hayes, who said he had a farm of 143 acres at Brookside. For the past two years he had been unable to pay expenses. His family consisted of a wife and seven children. The eldest was in constant attendance on her mother, and the eldest son worked on the farm. Had contributed altogether about £2OO towards his mother’s support. His father’s property when sold left him very little after liabilities were naid. He received a little money with his wife. , In cross-examination he stated that he had about 20. head of stock which were not under a bill of sale. Had not always lost by his farm, but had for the past two years. Had a sister living in North Canterbury who had property, "Was not aware that there was a mortgage oh it. . . •. His Worship considered it ridiculous that a man of defendant’s means should state' that. he was unable to : contribute towards his mother’s support. He had thrown the burden of : it upon a man who was really no relation, and the money spent in contesting the claim would probably have gone a long way towards maintaining his aged parent. He should make an order for 10s a week, to start from June Ist, 1887. The order to carry costs. trespass. William Hopkinson and James I McCallum were charged with tres_ I

passing with dog and gun op, the property of John Holwell, at Seadown, Mr Hay appeared for Mr Holwell. After hearing the evidence the accused were each fined 10s and costs. The usual solicitor’s foe was allowed. CIVIL CASES. W. Ackroyd v. W. Lewis—Claim £llßs 9d.—Judgment by default. The same v. Henry Eagle.—Judgment summons. Mr Tosswill for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for judgment debtor. A long argument ensued between counsel as to whether is was necessary for the debtor to appear in person, and it was ultimately agreed to adjourn the case for a fortnight, to admit of Eaglebeing present. A. Clyne v. J, Mcßobbie —Claim £4 2s 4d, Mr Tosswill for plaintiff. Defendant put in a set-off of 17s Id, and paid £2 Is 4d into Court. This was a case of disputed accounts; and the Bench had some difficulty in arriving at a correct conclusion as to how matters stood between the parties. Defendant’s account book was unintelligible to anyone but himself. He protested, however, that although he was no scholar his books were absolutely correct, and after prolonged examination His Worship was enabled to make out some of the entries. Judgment was given for 4s over the amount paid into Court. No coats were allowed. The Court then rose.