RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1861, 5 March 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tbmuka—Monday, March 4,1889. [Before A. M. Clark, and J. Talbot, Esqrs., J.P.’s]. »EUNKENNES3. Harry Harris was brought up charged with having been, on the previous evening, drunk while in charge of a horse, in a public place, used obscene and profane language within the hearing of passers-by, and resisted the police in the execution of their duty.

The accused, a young mam whose left eye had vanished behind mountains of bluish flesh that appeared to have come in contact violently with some hard substance, admitted all the charges and pleaded guilty to them. Constable Tarrant stated that at 7 o’clock on the previous evening a little boy had told him that a man had fallen off his horse on the bridge. He went and found the accused lying down as if asleep. Brought him as far as Ackroyd’s, corner when be became very violent, used very bad language, and resisted him. He had been riding a horse and fell off on the bridge, and that was the way he got his face disfigured.

The accused said he did not know anything about it. He was going to work at Albury. He was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, ALLEGED THREATENING LANGUAGE, George Gibbs was charged with having on the 25th February last threatened his wife, Jane Gibbs, to the effect that he would thrash and murder her, and the said Jane Gibbs was therefore in bodily fear of him, and sought to have him bound over to keep the peace. Mr Aspinall, who appeared for Mrs Gibbs, said that on the day mentioned the complainant and defendant had some dispute over the sale of some nails, and the defendant turned her out and threatened to murder her. Some years before she had to take out a protection order against him.

Jane Gibbs: lam wife of the defendant. On the 25th day of February be was making out bills, and he said “Xou cranky -—, you have been selling nails at 3d per lb. I’ll kick you out of tbe house.” That same afternoon he said, “If you stand where you are are to-night I’ll murder you.” A few months ago, after my confinement, he thrashed me four times, I had him before, the Court and got a protection order from him. In reply to the defendant the witness denied that she called the de r fondant’s mother bad names, not take the butcher’s knife to stab defendant, nor threw a weight at him.

Alexander Allan: Was at Gibbs’ store on the 25th of February. Gibbs said he would give his wife something to keep her quiet. He looked out of temper. Heard nothing she said.

To the defendant: Mrs Gibbs was talking, but could not say what she said. Both were out of temper. Christina Gibbs, daughter of complainant and defendant, was present, and heard her father threatening to murder her mother. In November last saw father beat her mother. Mother did not call grandmother bad names.

To the defendant: Mother is a goodtempered woman, and I never complained to you that mother was cross. 1 did hear father say to mother he would murder her. When mother went out she harnessed the horse up. I don’t know what she said.

The defendant said he was iijfau awkward position. His wife annoyed! him, and this was very irritating. She was continually aggravating him, and it was impossible to live and bring up children in the way they ought to be brought up with such a woman, Mr Clark said he would give them half an hour to try to settle it. . Mrs Gibbs said she was in danger of her life, and could not live with him.

Mr Gibbs said there was no chance of them living together. Mr Clark said there appeared to be faults on both sides and they would dismiss the case. Mrs Gibbs: What am Ito do : ? I am turned out of the house.

Mr Clark: Go back to the house, and if he interferes with you, get protection from him. civil cases. J. F, Douglas v. Alex. Humphrey —Claim £1 9s 9d. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant.

Samuel Douglas said he went down to cook for defendant on Ist February, and was there a week; came home on Saturday. Wages were 17s 6d. Gave Mr Humphrey a week’s notice/ and he would not take it. He offered witness off the place, and that whs the reason he did not go back. Was willing to work out the week.

To Mr Aspinall: Mr Humphrey said he wanted a boy for five or six weeks, but I did not promise to stay with him. Mr Humphrey said I broke my agreement, but X never made any agreement. He said he would pay me nothing, and that I had put him in a hole. I took 14s 6d, but was not satisfied with it. When Mr Humphrey engaged me I told' him I did not know how long I would stop. Mrs Douglas stated that she told Mr Humphrey the boy could not stay for the whole harvest, as his father would want him.

Alexander Humphrey, farmer at Seadown, said his arrangement with Samuel Douglas was that Douglas agreed to stay with him at 17s 6d per week for the harvest. He worked to the 10th February, when he gave notice. Protested against it, and offered him 10s for the work he had done. He compromised the matter, and took 14s 6d in full settlement, , Nothing was done while the boy was there. We started to cut the day hsT left, and, as he was leaving, thought him well paid.

Mr Clark said the evidence was conflicting, but they considered Mr Humphrey would not have engaged him except for the harvest. Judgment would be for defendant. The Court then rose.