RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2060, 17 June 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temcka—Monday, Junb 16, 1890. [Before C. A. Wray, R.M.] STBAT CATTLE. Geo. Latimer, charged with allowing his cow to wander at large, pleaded guilty, and was fined one shilling and costs, and cautioned that if it occurred again the fine would be heavy. . THE LICENSING ACT. Michael McAteer, was charged with having permitted drunkenness in his licensed house on the 33rd of May last. On a further information he was charged with having obstructed the police in the execution of their duty. Mr Cathro appeared for the defendant, John Morton, constable in charge of the police: On the 23rd May last was standing at the cerner of Whitehead's bntcher shop and heard a noise in the hotel. Went into a small room behind the bar. It was a few minutes past 9 o'clock. A man named Friel had a glass ot beer in his hand. There were bix other men in the room, all drunk. Four of them was the lowest class in the whole community. One of them was in a stupid state on the sofa. Went to Mr McAteer, who was in the bar. I told him about the low drunken erew he had in, and he said he would look after them, and that my place was on the street; that he did not pay £45 a year to allow me to walk in when I liked. I told him it was my duty to go in when I thought it right, He called me a scoundrel and hypocrite, and told me to leave the house. He caught me by the right arm and told me to clear out, and to report him to the Court. His father-in-law, Mr Power, came and interfered, and I left. Constable Egan afterwards saw the drunken men in the back room. A man named Stewart was lying on the table asleep when I; went back with Constable Egan. '

To Mr Catbro: I consider a man drunk when'he is different from sober. Drunken man may be "ible to walk about, "Was only a minute in the room. It is a fact thatT was angry, but riot with Mr McAteer. I was annoyed by a man outside. I said it is a low drunken crowd you have here. I do not think I used the word thieves. Mesßra Moore and Christmas were in the bar,, Mr McAteer did not ask could I insist on staying in the house after he ordered; me to go out. Ramsay went on the street when I went back the second time, but I did not arrest him. Saw nobody served with drink.

Constable Egan gav,e evidence to the effect that he went with Constable Morton, and saw the . men, four of whom were drunk. Ramsay came out when we went in. He was drunk. To Mr Cathro: Was there only a couple of minutes, Friel was the only one standing. Did not speak to any of them, borne of the men were sober, «aw no drink on the table. Friel was the only one that was noisy. Never saw drunkenness in Mr. McA.teer's Hotel more than anywhere else. John Moore gave evidence to the effect that Constable Morton said it was a low lot there was in the house, and Mr McAteer said he would look after them, Both were excited, and Mr McAteer asked the Constable to go out. Ivir IVcAteer asked the Constable could he stay in the house after he (Mr McAteer) ordered him out and the Constable said " No, I cannot," and Mr McAteer then ordered him out. Heard Mr McAteer call the Constable a hypocrite and a scoundrel, and then went round to the Constable to put him out.

To Mr Cathro: Was in the bar parlor afterwards. Saw no men there. There was very little noise in the house, but I did not see the men. I should think the men were not drunk. James Christmas gave similar evidence, adding that when the constable came in he spoke in a very excited manner. Mr McAteer was not excited, and was quiet when be came round to Mr Morton. Heard no noise in the bar parlor. Could hear the men talking, but no mere.

Thomas Olliver saw the men in the room, and tbey appeared as if they had a few drinks. They certainly were not dead drunk. There was no one helplessly drunk there. Saw no drink or glasses in the room. This concluded the evidence, and Mr Cathro said he thought there was no caae to answer. The men may have got drunk elsewhere. As regards the information for interfering with the constable it was bad. The charge of obstruction could only be maintained where an obstruction was committed in violation of the Jfolice Offences Act. Mr McAteer did not violate the provisions of the Police Offences Act-

His Worship said he would decide the point when he had heard the evidence. Humphrey Friel, sworn, denied that he waß drunk. He waa a sort of jolly. Came from Christchurch on Friday, and remained in the hotel till Sunday. Had four drinks from the time he arrived from Christchurch until the constable came in. Had no drink when the constable came in. Saw no ' I drinks brought in to the men, and they were not drunk. They were in good talking humor. They were quite able to look after themselves. James Crawford, laborer, was not in the Royal, but waa passing when the constable went in in a very excited way, and spoke about a low drunken crowd being in the house, and Mr McAteer told him his place was out- , side.

Charles Olliver: Was walking up the street from Mr Murphy's meeting and heard Constable Morton say "You have a nice school of low thieves and blackguards there." The constable was very excited. Was just in front of the bar door. The only noise I heard was a man singing a bit of a tune. Constable Morton told Mr McAteer he was a scoundrel after he used the words "low thieves and blackguards." M. McAteer, the defendant, said the men were quiet, and no liquor was supplied to them after tea. Some of them he had not seen in the hotel since midday before that. Was in the bar all the time, and no liquor was supplied to any of them. Mr Friel had not a glass of beer. Mr Stewart was lying on the table but not drunk. He was not well. Coustable Morten came in a very excited way, and said " that was a low school of thieves and vagabonds you have in, and you are one yourself." I told him not to expose me before my customers, and asked him into a private room if he had anything to say. Constable Morton said he could not stay iu the house if I told him to go ©ut, and I then told him to go out.

Atter Mr Cathro had addressed the Court, His Worship said there was evidence to show there were drunken persons on the premises, but none to show they had been supplied with drink. With regard to the point raised respecting the obstruction he held that information was bad, aad both informations would be dismissed, ASSAULT. John Breakwell, charged with having committed a breach of the peace, pleaded guilty under provocation. Constable Egan, J, McCaskill, and H. Lavery gave evidence to the effect that it arose out of a misunderstanding, Harry Lavery was struck and knocked off the footpath by someone he did not know. The police came and said they would arrest the man if they kuew him. The defendant thought afterwards that suspicion rested on himself, and struck Lavery for suspecting him. The police arrested both, but on the representations of those who witnessed the assault, Lavery was released, as he was not the aggressor. The defendant, who had been in custody since Saturday was cautioned and discharged, His Worship stating the affair was trivial. OITIL CASES. Elijah Brown v. Mrs Elizabeth Powell, wife of Thomas Powell—Claim £47 15s 7d.

Mr Salmond for plaintiff and Mr Raymond for defendant. Mr Salmond explained that the case was as follows:—The plaintiff supplied timber and material for building a house on a section belonging to Mrs Powell. The timber had been supplied to her husband, but the plaintiff subsequently found out it was for the defendant.

E. Brown, sworn, said: Mr Powell came and wanted quotations for supplying timber. I understood I was supplying the goods to Mr . Powell himself, but after I supplied the lot I found it was for Mrs Powell. Mrs Powell paid me £ll on account, and promised to pay the rest. Took a promissory note from Mr Powell, and asked Mrs Powell to endorse it. Mr Powell promised Mr Smith to attend to it, but a few days afterwards he brought the bill down, and I asked bim to get the wife to baek it, but he made all sorts of excuses. I took his signature. It was all I could get, and the bill was dishonored, Mr Pewell had cleared out, and I asked Mrs Port ell to give some security, but she made all sorts of excuses and would do nothing. "W"ould ! Jiot tell me where her husband was. Mrs Powell had the horse and cart besides the property. Mrs Powell told me she had an income of £IOO a year. To Mr Baymond: Was quite ' willing to give credit to Mr Powell, because I thought he was building on his property. Did not give a receipt to Mrs Powell in her own name,

j Thomas Oopestake, carpenter: » Worked for Mrs Powell on the build-1 ing of ihe house in question. Was paid sometimes by Mr Powell and sometimes by Mrs Powell. It was Mrs Powell engaged witaess, and said she would see him paid. Mrs Elizabeth Powell, wife of Thomas Powell: I married him in 1874, and had tome private property, and sometimes received money from home. The section in question was mine, and I mortgaged it to Mr Gentlemun for £SO to pay for materials. Gave the money to my husband. Had nothing to do with Mr Brown, Don't know what my husband did with the money. . My hmsband did not ask me to endorse a bill. I paid Mr Brown £ll, but made no promise to him. Never

recognised Mr Brown's debt. Did not tell Mr Brown I had an income of £IOO. I have to keep the family, and my husband does not provide for them. \ To Mr Salmond: I raised the money on the security of the property in order to pay for the building. I paid Mr Blyth £2O. I paid Mr Copestake, Mr Hardy, and Mr Jackson. I had nothing to do with Mr Brown, and looked to my husband to pay for it out of the £SO. Would have paid Mr Brown if I had the money. Am willing to pay now if I had bhe money. Had a horse and cart, but a month or I five weeks ago gave them to my husband ; The income from Home is from rents, and the value of it is about £SO a year. The defendant having signified her willingness to pay if she got time, the

case was adjourned for a fortnight to see what arrangements could be come to. The court then rose.