RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2045, 13 May 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Mat 12, 1890. [Before C. A. Wray, Es«[., R.M.] OBSTRUCTING THE PUBLIC thoeoughpa.se. Sarah Emma Noble, a captain in the Salvation Army, was charged with unlawfully causing an obstruction in the Main Street, Temuka, on the oight of Sunday, April 27tb, § Mr Cathro appeared for defendant, who pleaded “Not guilty.” Constable Morton said that on the oight of the 27th April, between the hours of 7 and 8 o’clock, two men were walking down the street, opposite the Bank of New Zealand. The army, led by the defendant, marched past them, wheeled, and formed a circle, and continued wheeling, so that the men had to walkthrough their ranks. By Mr Cathro ; I was one of the men. Witness continued : After passing through the ranks I looked back and saw them in a kneeling position, praying. I asked the Captain to move on, as she was causing an obstruction and was breaking the law. She declined. Afterwards she asked for some person to say a few words. Someone began to speak and there was some more singing. By the Bench : They were standing on one side of the street. A vehicle could .pass on one side if necessary. They would be likely to causa an obstruction if there was much traffic. Had reason to believe that people were annoyed by such assemblies in front of their houses. By Mr Cathro : If I had not walked through the ranks I should have had to stand still. They did not obstruct me so that I had to jostle anyone. In th«i special prayers no names were mentioned.

Mr Mogridge lives on on© side and the agent of tbe Bank of New Zealand on the other side of the street. Neither of these had complained lo him. Mr Cathro did not think it necessary to call any witnesses or place defendant in the Witness box. His Worship said there was this much in it : that when people were assembled in any number they might cause an

obstruction, and the constable was the person to judge. No one wished to in? terfere with the Salvation Army, who were an inoffensive body. In this case there seemed no ground of complaint, and he hoped they would not act so as te cause any. The information would be dismissed. A parent’s claim. Samuel Trengrove applied for an order compelling his sons, Thoqias GJoorge Trengrove and John Henry Trepgroye to contribute towards his support. Complainant stated that he was 72 years of age and unable to work. He lived at present with his youngest son at Winchester, who, having five children, could not maintain him without assistance, His son Thomas was an engineer by trade. He believed he had property near Eltham, in the North Island, but he had no direct evidence as to his means. John Henry Trengrove was employed at the Addington workshops, and earned 10s per day. He had agreed to assist in maintaining complainant if the elder hrqther would contribute. Complainant bad repeatedly written to Thomas, but qould get no answer. Heard from a relative that ho had 1()0 acres at Blthaqj, and kept some cows and working bullocks. Constable Morton here ppt in correspondence showing tfiat Thopaas Trengroye had left Eltham, and was engaged in a saw mill in the Palmerston North distriotNo information as to his means was available. In reply to the Bench Constable Morton said that in such a case as complainant's, unless there were relatives liable, the Charitable Aid Board granted rations to the yalue of about 12s a nponth. Bis Worship desired to have more information as to the means of complainant’s sons. He would adjourn the case for 14 days sp that the pojice might ascertain definitely what their respective positions were.

CIVIL OASES. Aspinall and Salmond v. D. Angland— Claim £3 13s. This case was adjourned from the previous sil ting of the Court to admit ot Mr Aspinali’s evidence being taken. W. Q. Aspinall now stated that defendant had seen him in reference to the preparation of a transfer from Mr McAteer to defendant. Told defendant the cost would be about £B. Owing to caveat being lodged the transfer was not completed. Had only charged tor work done. Replying to defendant; No arrangement was ever made to the effect that the work should be done for nothing. His Worship was satisfied that the claim was a perfectly legitimate one. Defendant was evidently under some mis apprehension. Judgment would be for amount claimed, and costs. ! W. Ackroyd v, J. Wilson—Struck out. G. McSheeby Gentleman v. John Collins —Claim £i sb. Mr balooond for plaintiff, Mr Gathro for defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence as to the particulars of claim some of which were supplied to the defendant directly, and some to defendant’s father on his account. Understood that all the goods were for the son, who, he believed, used them. By Mr Cathro : Had rendered the accounts lo defendant about the time h?s father filed. This was about three weeks ago. This was the first time the account was rendered, although some of tho goods were obtained in February last year. Had rendered an account to the elder Collins, who had admitted liability as to one item which was not included in this account, T hat was paid for but the balance was not. Had occasionally supplied goods to the son the father’s account. Subsequently the goods were booked to Patrick Collins and Son. His memory was not distinct as to which of the two the goods were supplied to. He was always under the impression after the father’s refusal to pay that the Son was tho party dealt with. By the Bench : Had treated the father and son as partners at first. When the father filed he had no assets. The team went over to the son.

John Collins, the defendant : Gave evidence as to certain ileme obtained by him on his father’s account. Had never had any goods on his own account. Had told Mr Qentlornun that the goods were for his father.

Cross-examined by Mr Salmond : Was pos : fcive that ho told plaintiff that the goods were for his father. Had a dray himself as we'l as his father. The straps and reins were for the binder which belonged to his father at the lime. Had received the binder from his father for work done. Did not know anything about straps for a horse cover. In July they had a team each. Was certain tho goods in the account were not used for his own team. Some of his father’s horses were sold. A collar in the account was used for one of them. The whip bought in January was given to him by his father. His team had not required anything for twelvemonths, except soma articles obtained at the Point, and paid for. Sometimes his father had paid for things which witness had procured for himself. Plaintiff was mistaken in thinking that any of the goods were for him. Had not shared profits with the father. Had given his father about £§o on his return from Albury where he had woiked. Mr Cathro objected to evidence ef this nature, and the objection was upheld. Cross-examination resumed : Could not account for his father paying for some items in the account and not others. Patrick Collins, a farmer, father ef defendant; Had seen the account before the Court. Tho items in it were for himself. Some of them were procured by the son at his request. Plaintiff knew they were for witness. Had offered to pay for some of the items, but not having enough change they had been booked to him. Had never received a bill, but plaintiff had spoken to him about the account about the . time of the cattle show. On the day of his filing plaintiff bad again reminded him of the account.

By Mr Salmond ; Was not aware goods were charged to Collins and Son. Knew nothing about the son having credit from plaintiff. Nothing in the account was for the son. The collar in the account was obtained by himself. His son worked for him in consideration of maintenance until last harvest twelve months. Had sold his teams to pay his debts. Had never made a present of goods to his son, who during two years had given him about £ll7. His son had the binder formally belonging to witness. The whip was in his son’s possession now. Had given his son security sver the binder for a loan advanced in October. By the Bench : Did not show the whole of the items in the account among his liabilities. Some of the goqds were now in his son’s possession. In making out his final statement had forgotten several items subsequently rectified. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 17a and costs, solicitor's fee 10a fid. John Meyer v. Ragu Williams. Mr Salmond for plaintiff. This case was one adjourned for a month to admit of some arrangement being inade. defendant' pot being present the case was adjourned for 14 days, the police to give him notice to appear, in default of which he would be liable to imprisonment. The Court then rose.