RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1908, 25 June 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Juke 24, 1889. [Before Captain Wray, E.M.] TBESPASS, Michael Oarr was charged with trespassing on the property of W. G. Aspinall, at Milford, oa the 16th instant. Accused pleaded guilty. ~W. G. Aspinall deposed that ©n last Sunday week, while strolling through his garden, he heard a gun go off, and some shot rattled around him. Saw the accused in the garden with a gun in his hand, and asked him what he was doing. He said shooting parroquets. Witness told him he had no right there and ordered him off, at the same time telling him he would summons him. The accused said he was at work in a paddock adjoining Mr Aspinall's garden. The paddock he was working in belonged to Mr Hayhurst, who had given him leave to shoot. He thought the land he was shooting on belonged to Mr Scott. The Resident Magistrate said the accused was liable fco a penalty of £2O. He reserved his decision until the next case had bsea taken. Arthur Selby was charged on the information of John Murray with having on the 29th May trespassed on the property of the trusteea of the late W. K. Macdonald at Eangitata. Mr Aspinall appeared to prosecute. The accused pleaded guilty, and in extenuation said he had no idea that the land he was shooting on belonged to anyone in particular. He had leave from the Rabbit Inspector to shoot. Mr Aspinall said the case was an ! aggravated one. Mr Murray, the i manager, saw them shooting, and when he spoke to them they said they would leave off. Mr Murray went away, and they commenced snooting again. One man had also given a false name. He said he was "John Jones," of Temuka, but no one of that name could be found here. The accused was in his company. They had four dogs and two guns. The defendant said they went off, bat while going away to their trap a rabbit jumped up, and one of his companions fired at it.

J. Or. Murray, the prosecutor, said he would know the mail who gave the false name. When the men were going away they did not walk together, but each man held his gun in position, as if to knock over anything he saw. Only one man had a gun when he first went up, but next time he went up two had guns. Accused cross-examined the witness to show that he would not have been on the land had he known he was trespassing, but witness said the argument he used was that the riverbed j was anyone's property. He admitted'

having given accused leave to shoot two years ago, but showed him where he could shoot. Ee d'd not think the accused wanted to ask for permi s sion on this occasion. His Worship said as it was n first offence he should inflict a fine of 20sand hoped it would be a warning to others. A similar penalty was inflicted in Carr's case. Costs were allowed. CITIL cases.

J. B. Binley v. Spillane: —Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff. He said two cheques had been -received from Christchurch covering the amount of the claim, but neither the exchange on cheques, Is, nor costs had been provided for.—Judgment for plaintiff for Is, costs lis, and solicitors' fee, £1 Is. J. Crow v. D. Leach—Claim ss, balance of amount due for skins sold. —Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and briefly explained the case, remarking that the amou'nt was only small, but the money was sued for on principle.—John Crow, the plaintiff, i said during last month defendant met him in the road and asked him if he had any skins for sale. Witness said he had, and, on defendant asking "How many?" he replied 15. Defendant asked whether he could get them if he went up to his house, and witness replied, " Yes, if you leave 2s 6d a piece for them." He went up and saw the skins, and said he would take them, but told witness' wife he would not give 2s 6d for them. (The R.M. said witness, could not give evidence as to what his wife said, as he was not present.) Defendant left 32s 6d and took the skins, Witnessjmet him in Temuka, and asked him for the balance, when he used bad language and said witness was mad.—To defendant : I counted the skins before I saw you. There was someone at the house besides Mrs Crow. I kept the skins where you found them. The skins had not been thpre for monthssome of them might have been there longer than a month, but I could, not swear it. There ' were 8 " fallen " skins there. I offered them to another person, but be did not buy them.— David Leach said he met plaintiff as stated, and asked him about skins, He said he had 15 skias at the house, which witness could have for half-a-crown. When he weut to the house he saw Mrs Crow, and was shown the skins. He counted the skips off the fence, and found only 34. Sorted them out into different lots, and said he could not give 2s 6d each for them, but if they liked to take 32s 6d for the lot he would take them. She said she did not know. He said it was all he could give, and she said he could take them—that she supposed it would be all right. He was sure there were only 14 skins. He paid the money.— To Mr Aspinall he said he admitted Mr Crow said he was not to take them unless he paid half-a-crown, but they were not worth it.—The E.M. said he thought they ought to have the evidence of Mrs Crow, aad adjourned the case for a week. Afterwards he advised the parties to settle the case before next Court day. J. Patrick v. G. Husband—Claim £6 10s, for rent of a cottage.—Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff.— Judgment by default, with costs, 14s. J. Mclnness v. Mrs Polaschek — Claim £7.—Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and said he had been requested by Mr Hay, who represented the defendant, bo apply for an adjournment for a week, as he was engaged in Timaru.—The adjournment until next Monday was granted. The Court then rose.