RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1873, 2 April 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, April 1,1889. [Before A. M. Clark, and K. P. Gray, Esqs., J.P.’s.] JUVENILE OFFENDERS. Alfred Higgins and David Grant, two lads aged 9 and 8 years respectively, were charged with wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to some grass and a gorse fence, thereby causing damage to the property of Mr Jon Brown, to the extent of £2. The lad Higgins in reply to the Bench admitted setting fire to the grass, which they afterwards endeavored to extinguish. Mr Jas. Grant, father of the accused, submitted that there was no case against his boy. He was charged with wilfully setting fire to a fence. As a matter of fact he did not do so. The lad Higgins said, in reply to Constable Morton, that he procured the matches from David Grant, T William Higgins, brother of accused, corroborated this. Mr J. Brown said that the father of accused Higgins had paid twenty shillings, half of amount of damage done. He did not therefore desire to press the charge against his son. Constable Morton said that he bad observed a fire on the Arowhenua township, and in company with two of Mr Brown’s employees and Constable Tarrant had extinguished ife with some difficulty. He then ascertained from W. Higgins, ]uu., how it had occurred. Grant again contended that there was no case against his son. He neither wilfully nor unlawfully set fire to the fence as set forth in the indictment. The Bench decided that the de- * fendant Grant would have to pay the balance of damages claimed by Mr Brown, via., twenty shillings, with costs. The case against Higginswould be dismissed. Mr Clark, in giving judgment, animadverted severely upon the negligence of parents permitting children to have access to matches, CIVIL CASES. Miss S. Pilbrow v. .Reginald Bree, of Gore—Claim £7 17a lOd. A, Mr Aspinail (for plaintiff) stated that the ca?e had been adjourned from a previous sitting of the Court to enable defendant to have-

his evidence taken at Gore. No return had been made from that Court, and it looked like a subterfuge on defendant’s part. He asked that if judgment were entered for plaintiff the extra costs incurred by her might be included. Judgment was given for amount claimed, and costs, also extra expenses, 21s 7d. .DrJ. S, Eayes v. Faul Claim £2 7s 6d.

Mr Aspinall for plaintiff. Adjourned for seven days. 4 Coira v. D. Stewart Claim £7 Bs. Judgment for plaintiff by default. Chas. Olliver v. John Barrett— Claim £1 7s. Judgment by default for amount claimed, and costs. The Court then rose.