Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, April 21, 1890. (Before J. T. M. Hayhurst and Jag Guild, Esqa., JP' S ,) ALLEGED TJNBEGISTEBED DOG. E. Pilbrew, clerk to the Temuka Town Board, v. James Radford. This was an information against defendant for being the owner of an unregisdog, and had been adjourned from the previous Court day. When the case was first called there was no appearance of the informant, and the case was ordered to be held over to admit of his appearing. Subsequently the information was dismissed, defendant proving that the dog in question belonged to his son, and had been registered 12 days prior to the information being laid. Defendant applied for hi* expenses, and was allowed 14s. BBEACIt OF THE FISHEBIES ACT. James Thompson and John Meechan were charged with having illegally in their possession a trout on the sth day of April, 1890, contrary to the Act. Mr Salmond appeared in support of the information, and Mr Hay for the defendants. Mr Hay pleaded guilty on behalf of Thompson and not guilty as regards Meechan. The history of the ease was a brief one. Thompson had been made a present of a trout, and handed it to Meechan. He had no idea that he was committing an offence at th§ time, this being the first trout he had ever received since his residence in the colony. He had never even tasted one, and had no hand m catching the one in question. Meechan had simply carried it for Thompson. He asked, theiefore, that the bench would deal as leniently as possible with the case. Mr Salmond intimated that he should prefer that a conviction should be recorded against each of the defendants. Mr Hay offered no objection, as both were technically guilty. His client Thompson, however,, would have to pay the fines. 'i he bench were of opinion that the case was by no means a' Berious one, and the nominal fine of 20s each would be inflicted, with 9s costs, and solicitor's fee, 21s, | Gray and Montgomery y. Patrick Collier—Claim £6 Is 7d. Mr Salmond for plaintiffs, Judgment by default, with costs,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TEML18900422.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Temuka Leader, Issue 2036, 22 April 1890, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
355

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Temuka Leader, Issue 2036, 22 April 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Temuka Leader, Issue 2036, 22 April 1890, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert