RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2021, 18 March 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temcka— Saturday, Marge 15, 1890. [Before J. T. M. Hayhurst, Esq , J.P.] TNBBEIACT. Joseph Towner, better known as Tichborne, who bad been remanded to -Timaru for medical treatment, was J ordered to pay 10s 6d, costs of his treatment in Timaru, severely cautioned, and discharged. 1 Monday—March 17. C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and W. XL Slack, Esq., J.P.] INEBEIACY AND ALLEGED INDECENCY. Robert Fenton was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and with indecent conduct, on the 11th March. " Accused admitted the first charge, but to the second pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Raymond. Constable Egan stated that from information received he went up the Main Street, Temuka, at between 7 and 8 on the morning of March 11, He found the defendant upon the footpath clad in a shirt and waterproof coat. Arrested him for drunkenness, and conveyed him in a trap to the lock-up. He appeared to be in an excited condition.’ He did not actually resist the police, but lay upon the ground, and it was thought better to take a trap than drag him along. Buttoned up the coat to cover his legs, By the bench: There was no indecent exposure. By Mr Raymond: The day previously the Licensing Bench had sat and given defendant a month’s notice to dispose of his license. If not he would lose it. Apart from drink the defendant was a very decent man, and the hotel was well conducted. Richard Lloyd, carpenter and V builder, Temuka; Remembered the 1 day in question. Defendant was disputing with Mr Clinch, and offered to fight him. Took off bis coat foi the purpose. He had then only a shirt on. It was a fairly long one. There might have been 12 people present. There were no females. Did not see anything indecent. Only saw his bare legs. By Sir Raymond; Had known defendant a long time. When sober he was a decent neighbor. No blows were struck, and Fenton put on his coat prior to the police coming up. Most of the business places were closed at the time. Could not say if • Mr Fenton was excited on account of Mr Clinch having made reports to the Licensing Bench. Could not say if any reports had been made. Mr Raymond submitted that there was no case against his client. The Act under which the charge was laid referred to a wilful act of gross immorality or obscenity. There was ■Hg-othing of the kind in this case. Both witnesses had stated that there was no undue exposure, and although his clierd’s costume was not perhaps a regulation one, still that did not itself constitute an offence. As to the charge of drunkenness defendant W as suffering from despondency through his troubles, and counsel trusted the bench would take that as some mitigation of the offence* ,

The bench thought it a pity that under the circumstances the defendant was not kept away from liquor. It appeared to completely master him. There did not appear to be evidence to sustain the charge of indecency, and that would accordingly be dismissed. He would be fined on the charge of drunkenness 20s, or in default 18 hours. A separate order would also be made for the costs of treatment of defendant while under remand, and also for the trap hire. CIVIL CASES.

J. Blyth v. W. Fleming.—Claim £2 Gs. Mr Sahnond for plaintiff. Judgment by default. E. Pdbrow v. J. H. Jackson—Claim 7s 6J, for rates year ending Nov. Slat, 1889. Defendant objected to pay same, as he was a weekly tenant.

Plaintiff said ho was clerk of the Town

District of Temuka. Notice was duly served on defendant, who had been on the books several years. He bad paid previously. lo Defendant: Did not know anything about defendant’s lease nor about authority by which name was put on the roll.

Defendant stated that since Eeb., 1888, his lease had expired, binco then he was a weekly tenant. His last rate was paid by the landlord. Claimed exemption as being only an occupier. Did.not understand that he would have to have his name taken off the roll.

Judgment for amount claimed. Henry Gay son v, W. Davey Claim £7 8s Gd. Judgment summons. Mp balmond appeared for plaintiff, and stated defendant had been arrested and was now in gaol. Adjourned for 16 weeks.

John Meyer v. Ragu Williams Claim £2 14s. Judgment summons. Mr Salmond for plaintiff. Defendant stated that he had had some work since judgment, but had been a long time idle. Had received £lO 11s 6d since the judgment—23rd December, Would swear that was all with the exception of a cord of'firewood. Had worked for T; Farke, F. Parke, H Oldfield, and R. McCully.' Had 9s from Oldfield, 19s 6d from McCully, £4 6s from T. Parke, £3 10s fromF. Parke. Was now working for Mr Donnithorne, getting £2 5s a week, Had been there three weeks. Had not received any money from him yet, Had 12 children, one of whom had been born since the judgment, for which a midwife’s fees had to be paid. About £6 was due to him. Pie owed £2 to the doctor and £2 to the midwife, and bad the butcher and baker to pay. Had nothing in view. Owed £2 5s rent to the Government for a deferred payment section. Gould pay Is a week. His wages did not average 20s a week. The eldest child vvas 15 years, she earned 2s Gii a week. Nine children were at home. Would sacrifice his land if payments were nut made. By Mr Salmond : Could not possibly pay 5s a week, nor guarantee 2s Gd a week, By the Bench: He might be idle for some time when harvest was over, and would require some means to support bis family. He could not see his way to pay 2s a week. Was willing to pay Is a week, or would work it out if allowed. • • The case to stand over ■ for two months, and if plaintiff was willing to give work, the defendant would be > expected to do the same. The court then rose.