RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1855, 19 February 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temur A—Monday, Feb. 18,1889,

[Before Captain Wray, R.M.] DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was charged with having been drunk and disorderly, and fined 5s or the usual alternative.

BREACH OP THE FISHERIES ACT. Hapi Tiapani, charged with having unlawfully fished with rod and line without a license, in the Opihi river, pleaded not guilty. Mr Aspinall appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Hay for defendant. Thomas Gunnion, the ranger, gave evidence to the effect that on the night of the 30th January he saw the defendant fishing in the river with a rod and line. Witness asked what he was fishing for, and he said “ Herrings.” He had a gaff, which he said he used to gaff eels. He had no bait on, and said his hook had been caught on a snag. To Mr Hay: Herring is the bait Maoris use for fishing for groper. He had no bait fit for trout or herring fishing. He was about two miles from the mouth of the river. The rod and line would be suitable for catching herring as well as trout. To Mr Aspinall; Never saw Maoris fishing for herring with rod and line. Hapi Tiapani stated he was fishing for herring. He wanted the herring for groper and kawai. Had a European rod. It was suitable for catching herring. Was about one and a-half or two miles from the mouth of the river. Herrings were plentiful up there. Was not fishing for trout. Was using beef as bait. The ranger did not search his bag. There were a good many fishing for herring with rods. To Mr Aspinall: There were not more herrings in the lagoon that evening than up in the river. The river was near home. Got the rod given to him about three years ago. Had four hooks on that evening. Had a trace on which he picked up in the river. The bsef was in the bag if the ranger had liked to look into it. Had no minnow on. To, Mr Hay : Trout would not. take beef as a bait.

Thomas Guonion, recalled, stated that there was no beef in the bag. He felt in the bag and there, was nothing in it except a gaff. His Worship said there was no case, although it was somewhat suspicious. The case would be dismissed. CIVIL CASES. Proprietor of the Temuka Leadee v. John Bull—Claim £llßs. Mr James Hay said that he had been requested by Mr White, who was acting on behalf of Bull, to asE for an adjournment. Bull did not deny that the money had been due, but he alleged that it had been paid to Eisher, who was Mr Twomey’s agent in Geraldine. He produced Eisher’s receipt for 10s, bub h® could not find the receipts for the other sums he had paid. Mr Twomey acknowledged that the receipt for 10s produced was genuine, but said defendant must show receipts for the balance. Under the circumstances he would not oppose the adjournment, as he certainly did not want the money paid again if it had been paid before. The money never reached him. He had frequently sent letters to Bui demanding the money; he had advertised that person’s holding Msher’s receipts should communicate with him so as to square up the accounts, but Bull had never taken any notice of this, and he deserved no consideration now. He would consent to the adjournment. The case was accordingly adjourned. J. S. Hayes v. Kenneth Cameron — Claim £2 2s 4d.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed, and costs. W. McCann v. W. Weir —Claim £3 6s.

Judgment by default for the amount claimed, and costs, Owles v, B. LeProu—Claim £2 6s ; Mr Aspinall appeared for defendant.

This was an Akaroa case, and as the defendant lives in this district his evidence was taken as follows :

B. LeProu: I formerly resided in Akaroa, and now reside in Temuka. Am a blacksmith and defendant in the action brought by Mr Owles. Filed a plea of infancy. Produce a copy of the registry of my birth. It shows lam under the age of 21 years. "With regard to the particulars the charges are not fair and reasonable. The oats are charged 5s 6d a bushel and the chaff 5a 6d a bag. These not are the prices agreed upon. POSSESSION OP A TENEMENT. Mr Gaze, clerk to the Arowhenua Town Board, complained to the court that Mrs Hpricbard had not yet complied with the order of the court to leave the cottage occupied by her. The board did not want to go to the expense of putting her out. His Worship asked Mrs Uprichard why she had not given up possession ? V; Mrs Uprichard said that she could not get another place. She had done her best but could not, and she had a, large family. A long conversation took place between His Worship, Constable Morton, and Mr Gaze. The constable stated that if Mrs Uprichard was turned out of the house she would have no recourse but to go to the charitable aid authorities in Timaru, as she could not get another house iu Temuka. His Worship said he could do nothing in the matter only advise Mrs Uprichard to leave the house, as apparently the board was determined to eject her. The court then adjourned.