RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2152, 20 January 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temtjka— Monday, Jan. 19, 1891.

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] ALLEGED ILLEGALLY UPON PREMISES AND ASSAULT.

George Latimer was charged with I being found unlawfully upon certain * premises at Temuka. A Mr Salmond appeared for defdnd- * ant, who pleaded not guilty. He was further charged with unlawfully assaulting Police Constables Egan and Morton when in the execution of their duty. Accused pleaded not guilty. 1 Constable Morton, sworn, said that the accused, under warrant from the Court, had been ejected from premises he had occupied. Latimer was not present at the time. His wife gave up possession peaceably. The premises were secured when he left. Between 7 and 8 that evening Latimer, came to the station and asked why his wife and children had been put'out. Told him that he had taken possession under the warrant. Later on. he. came and said that be should hold the constable responsible for his wife and family. About II o’clock observed a light in the house. Went in and found Latimer with one of the children. Asked him why be was there. He made no reply but put down the child and took off his coat. Arrested him. He resisted. Constable Egan was present, and. a very violent struggle ensued, accused kicking and using all sorts of tactics (described) to avoid being taken to the station.

By the Bench: The accused’s wife and brother were present most of the time.

i Witness continued : Took possessioxt'-* of the property about three o’clock in < the afternoon. It was about 8 o’clock when Latimer first came |fo the station, Saw him again at 9 o’clock. He then said that he should , hold witness responsible for his wife and family being in the street. Had told Latimer frequently that he would be forced to leave eventually. Had asked Mrs Latimer to let her husband know' that he should require possession on the Saturday. From the threats he had used she thought it better to go out quietly and not let him know anything about it. fey the Bench: Was considerably shaken by the accused’s violence. By Mr Salmond : Fastened the back door on the inside with a button and small bolt. It would take more than a shake to open it. The front door was locked. Could not say if the door could be opened without violence.; It was a fine night until eleven o'clock; It was drizzling then. The defendant has seven children. When he went into the bouse asked Latimer what he was doing there. He took o£E his coat. Arrested him at once. Had no occasion for a warrant. Could not say if he had any felonious intention.,' Eugene Egan, a constable at Temuka, sworn, said : At about 11 o’clock was in company with Constable Morton. Saw a light in the house lately occupied by Latimer, Went in; Latimer was there with a child in his arms. He laid the child down, took off his coat, and made a move towards Constable Morton. Constable Morton took hold of him, and told him he arrested him for being on the ‘ premises. There was a great struggle to get him away. He jammed in the door. When on the ground he sang out that he was being choked and bitten. Some people came about and assisted. He kicked at them also. , Witness was kicked in (he ribs and legs and other parts. By Mr Salmond ; Accused was not | offered a chance to leave the premises quietly. He could have gone quietly to the lock-up, BytheE.M.: Accused went towards Constable Morton as soon as his coat was off. It was a hazy night, but not cold.

Frank Denby, telegraphist at Tern uka railway station : Heard a row between 10.30 and eleven at the premises lately occupied by Latimer. Found Constables Morton and Egan there. Latimer was kicking and struggling. He kicked witness and Constable Egan. Was called on to assist and then got kicked. Did not see unnecessary violence used. The constables took hold of each arm. Accused would not have his coat on. Was there about three-quarters of an hour. He was carried off the section at last by the constables and two others.

William Storey, tailor, Temuka: Knew the accused. On Saturday, about eleven, when witness was leaving his shop his attention was drawn to a noise at the premises mentioned. Went down with others. The police were trying to persuade accused to go quietly and peaceably to the station; He was resisting violently and kicking. The whole lot wer® down at one time on the stones. Saw accused with his arm round Morton when they were on the ground. Had seen rowdies arrested before, but never saw two constables taking half an hour to persuade a man to put bis coat on.

Mr Salmond, in defence, quoted from sub-section 9 of the Police Offences Act, and contended that the defendant was not upon the premises without lawful excuse. The meaning of the section was evidently that a criminal offence must be disclosed, and not a.mere civil trespass. It would lead to an infinite amount of hardship if a man were liable to be charged with a criminal offence if he happened to take shelter in

■ —————i unoccupied, outhouse from a shower of rain. The fact of a writ of ejectment haring been issued was perfectly irrelevant. If, as he contended, the defendant was not liable under this section be would not be liable to answer the charge of unlawfully assaulting, as a person illegally arrested had a right to resist. He might point out that defendant did not )resist very seriously; he used no weapon. He had also great provocation. His wife and children were out in the wet weather, and the youngest child, of two years, might have suffered severely. He relied, however, upon the interpretation of the section of the Act quoted . He would point out also that the warrant under which the

police acted was defective, as no date was' mentioned as to when the final delivery of the premises would be required. George Latimer, sworn: Was the defendant in this case. Returned about $ o’clock from work. Found his family outside the house, some were crying and some sleeping Went to the police station and asked to see the warrant. Went then to five different people to get a house without success. It was raining when he returned, his family were still outside, and his brother was there. Witness went to the back door took hold of the handle, shook it and the door opened. Took the youngest child iu and sat on the floor. Was scarcely there two minutes before the constables came in like two lions. Told the constable he had never seen a warrant. He got up, put the child on the floor, and went to put his coat under it. Was then going to light his pipe, whan the constables took bold of him, was Beverly treated, went into the house to get shelter for his family. Did not go there to burn the place Y3own. 3 By Constable Morton: His wife and family met him on the section in front of the bouse. Did not remember being told the previous Saturday that he would have to leave. Had said he would, remove in 24 hours if he could get a house. Could not get a house. By the E.M.; Was aware that he would have to leave. Had been two years in the house, and had paid no rent.

In reply to his Worship Constable Morton said that he had no opportunity of giving .possession of the house to the owner or his agent. His Worship said that morally the man ought to be punished severely, but the question for the court was whether the case oame under the section of the Act. Anything the wife or children had suffered was purely due to the defendant. The owners of the property had acted most generously. He was bound to say that in his opinion the objection raised by Mr Salmond was fatal, and although the defendant deserved to be punished the charge of entering the premises could not lie, On the second charge a difficulty also occurred. If he was not in unlawful possession he might tiave some grounds for resisting. The charge would not be proceeded with, but if the police could see their way to lay a fresh information he would recommend that coarse. The case would he withdrawn without prejudice to further action. A charge against Hebert Latimer in connection with the above case was also withdrawn, without prejudice to further action. OB AZINO ON BOADS. Eli Prattley was charged with unlawfully permitting 7 cows to be herded and grazed on a public road, The offence was admitted. Constable Egan proved the offence. Defendant pleaded ignorance of the law. Fined 5s without costs. Frederick Park was charged with allowing 5 horses to wander at large en the public road, and admitted the offence. It occurred through a gate being left open. Fined 5s without costs, BBBACH OF ACCLIMATISATION ACT, David. Leach was charged with placing a pet in the Orari river, contrary to the regulations. Mr Salmond appeared fer the informant; the G-eraldine County Acclimatisation Society. Jamas Bannatyne, a shepherd, residing at Eiverslea: Remember the 14th November. Was going through the paddocks. Saw a boy on the opposite side of the Orari, Went over to the side of river. Saw Leach crossing the river. He had a hat, vest, and shirt on only. He did not see witness until he was close upon the bank; Went down the river bank until he got above defendant. Defendant was standing in the river with a net in his hand. It was a net used for catching trout. He was taking it across the river from where the boy, his son, was. Asked him what he was doing. He said he was fishing. Asked who ,gave him liberty to fish there. He said Mr Clark. Told him if he had liberty to fish it was not with a net. He did not reply for a time. Told him he would have to report him. Asked witness not to, Did not see any fish with him. It was about two miles from the mouth of the river, within the boundary of the acclimatisation society. By the accused: It was about 3 o’clock on Sunday afternoon. The water was not very deep there. It was about up to the hips. Did not go into the riverbed. Stood on the bank. There was a good pool near where you were. You said there were two good fish there. Told you that you could not go down t? the mouth. Am sure X was sober, Had not tasted liquor

that day or lor days before. Had seen accused before, but not ontheTemuka

bridge. Had never been on the bridge in my life. Could not say what size mesh the net was. It might be about 1£ mesb.

By His Worship: Could not say how long the net was. It was nearly the length of the court room. He had no rod. He was in the water dragging the net across. The boy held an end. Did not see any fish in it. By accussed: Was sure it was fifteen yards long. Did not know what a screen for catching “ bullies *’ was.

David Leach, sworn, said he was the defendant in this case. He was walking down the riverbed near the middle of the day. He came across a piece of the net partly in and partly out of the water. He tried to pull it out It was fast. Took off trousers and boots and tried to get it off a snag Saw Bannatyne coming some 5 or 6 chains away. Told him he was trying to fish the net out. He said “You put it there,” and asked if he had any fish. Said no, but saw plenty coming down the river. Was told by last witness to clear out, Said that he had permission from Mr Clark to come that way. Asked him what about a bit of bag that was lying there. It might belong to the net and have something iu it. It was empty. Left it there and the net also, The boy did not enter the river.

By Mr Salmond: The boy was his son; only about ten years old. Did not bring him in case he should howl as he bad done before. Was on the north side when he first saw the net. The net did not belong to witness. Was going to take it. Was taking the net off a stick when be saw Bannatyne. Bannatyne asked him who gave him permission, and aftersaid be must inform about him. Did not take the net away. It was no good. By the Bench: Had in the cart some blankets, a spear, rod and torch, and was going fishing to the mouth of the river. Bannatyne recalled: There was a snag close to the boy. The accused was in the deep water. There was no net on the snag when he first went there. Saw accused take the net and put it in the cart. But the bag in also.

By the accused : Did not go across to the Ohapi Creek. His Worship said the case was one of one witness against another. He believed Bannatyne’s evidence, however, His Worship asked about accused’s position. Constable Merton believed him to be very poor. Mr Salmond asked for as severe a sentence as possible. It was a common offence, bat bard to secure a conviction. Fined £5 and costs, in all £2 2s. The fine to be recoverable by distress, and in default one month's imprisonment. otrix CASES. E Vallender v C. Diggan—Claim £l,—Mr Salmond for plaintiff. — Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs

Same v Crawford—Claim £3 6s 6d ; judgment summons, — Mr Salmond for plaintiff and Mr Cathro for defence. —After taking evidence the Magistrate declined to make any order. The case would be adjourned for two months

A Russell v W Eaglestone—Claim Bs.—Judgment for amount claimed and costs W C Roulston v F Fowler—Claim £3 4s. —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs

frame v 0 Diggan—Claim £1 8s 6d. —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs Marianne Perceval v Arthur Eenniaon. —There being no appearance of the parties, the case was struck oat

F Franks v W Ziesler—Claim £5 ss.—Mr Cathro for plaintiff and Salmond for defendant.—-A technical objection being raised by Mr Salmond, His Worship suggested, and it was arranged, to settle the matter out of Court The Court then rose.