RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2158, 3 February 1891, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tbmwka— Monday, Feb, 2, 1891. [Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] ALLEGED ASSAULT. John Mclnnes was charged with unlawfully assaulting Eobert Roberts on January 17th, The complainant prayed that the defendant might be bound over to keep the peace, Mr Salmond appeared for the defendant. Robert Roberts, the complainant, stated that he was a laborer, residing at Arowhenua, and lived on the section adjoining accused. His horse was tethered on the creek reserve, and defendant’s children kept chasing it away. Told them if they did not stop he would dip them in the creek. Later on he was returning from town and went to remove his horse. Met defendant and asked him if the horse was annoying him; Defendant said no, but that he (witness) was annoying his children. Defendant then rushed up and hit him, Was about to return 5 the blow, but beard bis wife scream,

saw her turning pale, and decided not to fight, but told him he would summons him instead. Defendant said it was not a piece of blue paper he wanted. He would fight him ©r any man in Sod Town, Witness thought the relations between himself and defenbent were strained on account of a land transaction.

By Mr Salmond : Surmised he was a rather deparate ruffian as he was willing to fight any man in Bod Town, Had heard of his fightirg before in Timaru. Had not been struck before. Had not to his knowledge said that he would fight him. Had no animosity against defendant. He would swear no ill language was used by either party. He did not use abusive language to defendant’s children. The blow sent him spinning round like a top. Bridget Cunnard : Was standing talking with informant and his wife and noticed the children of defendant chasing the horse. Complainant after a time told the children to stop or he wonld dip them in the creek. Later on was going again to the house, when she heard Mrs Roberts sing out. Saw Mclnnes rush at Roberts, and strike him on the face. Heard Mclnaess say that he did not want a piece of blue paper, hut would fight any man in the place. By Mr Salmond: Mclnnes was a quarrelsome man, and often fought Knew it from her own experience. Mr Salmond thought there was no occasion to have defendant bound over. An ordinary information and a nominal fine would have met the case. No reasonable grounds had been shown that a repetition of the assault was to be feared. To bind a man over to keep the peace was a very serious matter, as he might not be able to find sureties.

His Worship said that there was considerable latitude left with the presiding magistrate. He understood that there was a cross-summons. He would take evidence upon that, and reserve his decision. ALLEGED OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Robert Roberts was then charged with using obscene language in a public place on the 17th January. Defendant pleaded not guilty, Mr Salmond appeared in support of the information. Johanna Murphy, a widow, residing in Arowhenua, stated that she saw defendant taking a bucket of water from the creek. Heard Roberts make use of an abusive word towards Melnnes’ daughter. Did not care for one party more than another. Was on her oath and was telling the truth. By defendant: Had the word written down because she did not wish to use it in court. His Worship said that there appeared to be a little discrepancy in the evidence. He should dismiss both charges. He suggested that the parties should try and be more friendly in future. GffVIL CASES. Aspinall and Salmond v. John Vince—Claim £2. Judgement for plaintiff by default, with costs. Henry Goodey v. John Yince — Claim £3 10s.—Mr Salmond for plaintiff.—Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount claimed, and costs. W. Hopkinson v. Francis Franks — Claim £1 11s 3d. The sum of 6a was paid into Court. Mr Salmond for plaintiff and Mr Oathro for defendant.

W. Hopkinson stated that on Nov. 9th be had put 10 horses into a piece of ground he had recently bought. He found them afterwards in the pound, and had to pay 10s for them. Saw Pranks about it, who admitted turning out the horses. On Nov. 22 supplied Pranks with lime to the value of £1 6s 3d. Had received a jar valued at sa, which was credited as a contra.

By Mr Cathro: Mr Franks said he had not given up possession of the paddock when the horses were turned out. The horses were turned out before the lime was supplied. When he supplied the lime told defendant that he should sue him for the 10s which ho had paid for poundage. Defendant said that he would have no claim, as he (defendant) had received no notice from Mr Ziesler, the owner of the section, and did not recognise Mr Pilbrow. Witness on the 9th | November knew Mr Franks had been ( in occupation of the land; Witness was in possession of the land about the end of October. Got possession from Mr Pilbrow. Was not instructed that he would receive possession from ' Mr Franks. Was told to take possession and put his horses in. This would be about a fortnight before the 9th November. Arranged with Mr Franks to cart the lime at 10a per ton. Franks said that he could call at the Kakahu store and get an order for the lime. Told Franks that as his horses were in another direction it would be more convenient to pay for it. Had paid for it. Delivered tons to Franks himself. After witness got possession of the paddock instructed Mr Salmond to apply for the cost of the fence. By His Worship: Put nothing in the paddock before the 9th. Had cut flax off it before that date. Had not spoken with Franks about it, Knew Franks had been in possession before. Francis Franks, the defendant, said that he gave up possession of the land mentioned on the 19fch or 20th November. Told Mr Hopkinson at the factory when arrangements were made for fetching the lime. First notification he received was a note i from Mr Pilbrow to the effect that Mr

IHopkinson had bought the section and would call and see him (defendant), about the fence. Kept possession owing to a dispute about some fencing. Never gave up possession until he (defendant) told plaintiff. Did not know plaintiff had ever exercised rights of ownership in any way when his horses were put in. Understood that Mr Hopkinson would pay for the fence on account of Mr Ziesler or would have given up possession before. Had not arranged with Mr Hopkinson to supply lime. Only arranged for carting at 10s a ton. Had been charged by Mr Hornsey with a ton of lime, and had paid him for it. Received the summons on the same evening as he paid for the lime. Was only charged for a ton. Had paid 6s into Court to pay for carting. By Mr Salmond: Had received notice from Mr Ziesler on Nov. 3rd, that the section was sold to Mr Hopkinson. Found the horses in the paddock on the 9th and turned them out. Objected to pay Mr Hopkinson as be (witness), had paid Hornsey. There was not a ton and a half. Hornsey had told him that Hopkinson bad supplied him with flour, but did not knew nor was he told that Hopkinson was paying for the lime on his account. Mr Cathro submitted that there was no evidence that Hopkinson was in possession of the land when the horses were turned out.

Mr Salmond said that plaintiff had entered into possession of the land peaceably on the 9th, and when Franks re-entered he was a trespasser. There was some dispute about the weight of the lime, but the plaintiff’s was the only reliable evidence on the subject. His Worship said that it appeared to him Hopkinson was in possession of land. The lime appeared to have been paid for by the payment of 6s to Hornsey, He would give judgment, therefore, for 10s paid for poundage, and Ids carting, less amount paid into Court. The Court then rose.