PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHURCH GERALDINE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2282, 19 November 1891, Page 2

PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHURCH GERALDINE.

Mr Maalin’s auction rooms at Geraldine was laid out in tea-meeting style on Monday evening when the anniversary tea meeting in connection with the above church was held therein. A good number sat down to tea, but the ladies could have provided for as many again, judging from the amount of good things that was left. The following ladies attended to the tables :—No. I—Mrs Amos Sherratt and Miss Stonehouse. No. 2 Mesdames Sutherland and Hammond. No, 3—Mesdames Iveunington and 0. E. Sherratt. No. 4 Mesdames Maslin, and Gibson, and Miss Andrews. No 5 Mesdames T. Sherratt, Logan, and Miss F. Hawke. After tea an adjournment was made to the Primitive Methodist Chapel, where an after meeting was held, Mr F. It. Flatman, occupying the chair. The choir sang “ Come Thou Fount.”

Mr Flatman said he had much pleasure in occupying the position as chairman at such a meeting. He w r as very pleased to note that since the last time they met in the little chapel a great improvement had taken place in the way of making , things healthy, beautiful and pleasant to look upon. He was sure they could serve and worship God the better for it.. He was sorry there w'as not a crowded meeting for such a fine evening, but he thought a mistake had been made in not advertising it. Mr Hammond, the treasurer, then reported on the finances of the church. To the end of the year they had a deficit balance of £5 13s 4d, but they must bo in the fashion, and run into debt as well as other churches, so they renovated the interior of their chapel, and he was sure the members would approve of it. The Rev. A. B. Todd then gave an excellent address on “ The Church, and the present day questions.” Captain Patton, Salvation Army, Rev. W. 0. Woodward, and the Rev W. C. Wood delivered congratulatory speeches. Mr C. E. Sherratt proposed, and MrR. Hammond seconded, a vote of thanks to the ladies wdio had provided the tables at the tea, and all who had assisted in any way to its success. This and a vote of thanks to the chairman brought the meeting to a close after a collection had been taken up in aid of the alterations to the church, which realised £1 lls Gd. The choir, assisted by friends, under the leadership of Mr Amos Sherratt, sang splendidly during the evening. Mr T. Sherratt acted as organist. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Geraldine—Tuesday, Nov. 17th, 1801. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., E.M., and H. W. Moore, Esq., J.P.] INTERPLEADER CASE. Rutland & Co. v. J. Turner, Mr Hay for Messrs Rutland and Co., Timaru; and Mr F. Wilson Smith on behalf of Mr James Turner. Mr Hay briefly stated the facts of the i case, which arose out of a transaction made between the defendant in a case recently heard of Turner v. Homes, and Messrs Rutland & Co., of Timaru. Mr Hay called, John H. Glasson, member of the firm of Rutland & Co., Auctioneers, Timaru, who deposed that on the 24th October last Mr Homes called at his place of business and told him he wanted money. Witness asked what security he had, as he understood that everything was. under Bill of sale, but Homes said “ No, that he had a bridle, saddle, horse, and pigs.” He then went with him to see the horse, saddle, and bridle. After that lie made an offer for the lot of £lO. Homes agreed, and before they paid him the money he got a receipt from Mr Homes. [Receipt was here handed in.] They were to get possession as soon as they had sold Homes’ business at Hilton. The sale was not completed, and subsequently they got word that the bailiff had seized the articles and horses. To Mr Smith: Did not know wdiere Homes was at present. Believed he was in Christchurch. He left for there last week. The mare was sold for £6 15s, the colt £8 ss, saddle and bridle £2, and pigs 7s 6d. They did not sell them with any guarantee or reserve. The receipt in Court was a sale note. Did not intend to tile the document as a bill of sale. To Mr Hay : The firm had been put to considerable expense in getting possession of the articles. 1 To the Bench: They never got 1 possession of the articles till after the 1 sale. I Mr Smith submitted that the document 1 1 produced in Court was nothing else than . i

a bill of sale, and for that reason was void. He could show also that it was entirely foreign to the auctioneering business to buy and sell property in the way shown in evidence. Ho could also prove that Mr Homes could easily have obtained £lO or £l2 for one of the animals alone if he had taken it to Geraldine. But he relied mainly on the fact that under the Chattels Transaction Act the receipt in Court was an absolute bill of sale. Constable Willoughby, sworn, said he was bailiff of the court and seized the goods in question. The goods were then in Mr Homes possession on 3rd Nov. Janies Turner, deposed that the roan mare he valued at £l2. He had made enquiries and found that several people would have given £lO to £l2 for it. Mr Homes had once offered the mare to Mr Cox for £l2. Mr Homes told him that Mr Rutland on the 7th Nov. offered him £l2 for it. John McCoil, shepherd, residing near Hilton, said he would value Mr Homes’s roan mare at £lO or £l2. A mare of that description would fetch more in the place where it was known. Mr Hay submitted that it was beyond a doubt from the evidence that an absolute sale had been effected. Mr Hay cited several analogous cases to support his contention. The sale, he said, had been completed with one exception, that the money was not paid till after the sale. Mr Smith cited several cases also in support of his point, and referred to the wording of the document, which was not that of an ordinary receipt. Mr Glasson’s evidence also proved that it was not. He also pointed out the principal witness in the case must be Mr Homes himself, and he had not been called. The bench said that the points raised led to the suspicion as to whether any possesssion had been given, and they would like to examine the matter more minutely and would therefore reseve their I judgment, \ Later on Mr Smith said that as Mr Homes was likely to be coming into some r money shortly from insurance on his furniture he would like the matter decided [ in Timaru as soon as possible. ! The bench agreed to do so. ALLEGED ASSAULT. Mary Cross was charged with assaulting Esther Jones, by presenting a loaded gun at the head of the said Esther Jones with the intent to shoot her. Mr White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay for Mrs Cross. Mr White stated the facts of the case, which are detailed in the evidence, and agreed that the Bench should deal with it summarily. He said that if the facts which would come out in the evidence had . been concerning two men he thought there would be very little doubt but that the Bench would commit for trial. Esther Jones, complainant, wife of John David Jones, farmer, Winchester, deposed that about 8 o’clock in the morning on the 9th October last she was going towards the gate leading to one of her husband’s paddocks at the road at Orari. When she got near the gate she saw accused. The latter was standing inside her own gate. Accused’s gate faced on to the road she was on. Accused’s eldest boy was on horseback on the road, and one of her little girls was on the road outside accused’s gate. Witness saw her husband’s horses coming down his paddock to the gate. The gate was shut. Accused’s second boy was behind the horses when they came out of the paddock. Did not see the boy in the paddock driving the horses. Witness then went up to accused, who was at her own gate, and said, “ You can’t deny now that your boys take the horses out of the paddock.” She made no reply, but put her hand up to her nose in contempt to witness. The eldest boy was standing with the horse at the time on the road, and went and opened his gate. It was on the way to the horses that witness passed accused’s gate. Witness tried to get the horses back into the paddock but could not, and then took them home and put them into her husband’s stock yard. Having got the horses into the stuck yard she then began to milk the cows. The dog barked, and, looking round, she saw Mrs Gross coming across her own paddock to the gap leading on to the road facing her husband’s gate. She saw that accused had something with her, but did not know what it was. Witness then rose up and went forward to the gate, and accused commenced abusing her, and then came forward to the gate. Witness went out of the gate, and accused put the gun up to witness’s face, saying, “ I’ll shoot you.” The gate was a large one, the top reaching to witness’s breast. Accused was holding the gun pointing the muzzle in witness’s face. Witness took the gun away from her, and struck her across the back once. Witness was holding the gun by the barrel and struck - her with the butt. After being struck accused threw herself on the ground, and afterwards picked up a {large stone and throw it at witness. Witness struck at her a second time with the gun, but missed her, the gun hitting a big stone, winch broke it off at the stock. She threw another stone, and witness struck her again on the back with the gun. She got up then, and went to her own paddock, and witness took the gun home and sent for her husband, who was away at work. Told him what had taken place, and he went for Constable Willoughby, who came to the house, and the gun was given to him. Tiie gun was in the same state when she gave it to Constable Willoughby as when she first seized it, except that it was broken.

To Mr Hay: There was no horse of Mr Cross’ along witlrher husband’s when they came out on the road. She saw Mrs Cross’ two cows On the road further away. She had never spoken to Mrs Cross since the last Court case, but had spoken to her daughter, but did not threaten her that she would do the same to her mother as her husband had done to her father. Witness was not watching to attack accused, and would not have done so if she had not presented the gun. Accused was able to walk home.

Nellie Jones, daughter of the last witness, remembered being at her mother’s door when the altercation took place between her mother and Mrs Cross. Witness gave evidence mainly corrobative of that given by her mother. Constable Willoughby, sworn, said that on the morning in question he was informed by Mr J. I). Jones of an assault, and went down to his house, and was given possession of three pieces of a gun by his wife. The gun was capped on both nipples, and he took the caps off and

afterwards withdrew the charges, and found the gun loaded with powder and shot.

This closed the case for the prosecution and Mr Hay for the defence called. Dr Fish, who gave evidence as to being called to see Mrs Cross at her house, and found her in bed. Examining the in-

juries from which she was suffering, found a bruise on the back above the hip, and the shoulder was somewhat red. He only attended her once. The injury across the small of the back was simply a bruise and nothing more. She could be expected to get up in two or three days. He would think that it would require a blow of ordinary severity to make such a bruise. To Mr White: He ordered her an ordinary lotion, and did not consider the injury of very great importance. The bruise might have been caused by falling against a gate or by any external violence. The Court here adjourned till 2 p.m., and on resuming, Mr Hay called, Mary Cross, who said her husband was from home on the day in question. She had sent her son Edward to Loach’s about 6in the morning, on a horse. She was then putting the cows out, and a two-year-old filly got out of the paddock, and went over the road and jumped into Jones’s paddock after the other horses. She went in to try and separate them, but could not. She afterwards sent her boy with Jones’s horses back again, they having followed her filly when it came out. Mrs Jones came out of her gate and went towards the horses. The boy ran away from the horses, saying that Mrs Jones was coming with a stick. After i breakfast she took Lenny part of the way to school. Mrs Jones was close at the gap at her paddock. She went across the paddock with her boy, taking the gun on her arm. She had never loaded or fired a gun in her life. She only took it thinking that Mrs Jones would be afraid to do anything when she saw her with a gun. She went over to where her son Lenny was minding cows, and after waiting till Mrs Jones had gone back into her " own paddock she proceeded home with her son Lenny and had to pass Mrs Jones’s gate to get home. Mrs Jones came out from her gate on the road and when she saw witness coming she went back again, but when witness was within a yard of the gate Mrs Jones came out on her. She had never spoken to Mrs Jones before since the last court case. Mrs Jones spoke about Johnny taking her horse, and she said “ I’ll teach you going to shows. I’ll tear your face so that you can’t go to any more shows.” She thereupon caught hold of the gun by the barrel and witness said “ Don’t, that gun is loaded.” Mrs Jones seized the gun and struck her on the back. Witness fell and Mrs Jones struck her again and the gun broke. She tried to crawl out of the way and Mrs Jones gave her another blow and witness’s eldest daughter and son came to her assistance. Witness was in bed four days, and was still suffering from the effects of the injuries, and could not yet do her ordinary work. To Mr White : Her necessity for taking the gun with her was because she might meet Mrs Jones at Kelman’s road. She . would swear that she never put the caps on the gun. Her husband kept it loaded and capped hanging up in the house. Mrs Jones had threatened her daughter that ‘ She would do to her mother what her husband had done to her father.” It was because of this that she carried the gun, : being in fear of Mrs Jones. It was not Y true that she picked up a stone to Mrs ' Jones.

Margaret Cross, daughter of last witness, said : On the Show day Mrs Jones came and stood on the top of her father’s fence and called her names. She said she would give her mother a thrashing the next time she caught her on the road, and stop her from going to any more shows. She said she would murder witness, and thrash the others when she caught them on the road. Witness remembered seeing her mother take down the gun on the day of the trouble and go across the paddock with her brother Johnny, She saw Mrs Jones get up on the fence three times before her mother came. When her mother got near the gate Mrs Jones rushed out on her. Witness then ran down through the wheat to her mother. When Mrs Jones saw witness coming she got stones and threw them at her, and while doing so her mother had time to get out of Mrs Jones’s way. To Mr White : When her mother took the gun down she it was safe to carry. This closed the evidence.

The Bench said: We propose to treat the matter summarily. We have had these people before us once before, and have a good opportunity of judging how matters stand. No doubt there is a very unfortunate state of feeling existing between these two families, and though we do not think that Mrs Cross took the action she did with the actual intent of shooting or inflicting any bodily harm, we think it a most improper thing to do, and one which might have led to most disastrous consequences, not only from her unfamiliarity with arms but with the struggle she knew might come on in the event of meeting Mrs Jones. It is a wonder to us that the gun did not go oft’ during the struggle when Mrs Jones seized the barrel. It is plain these people must be restrained in some way from breaches of the peace. They are dangerous to each other and the community,audit is perfectly scandalous to the neighborhood for two families to be living together in a state of warfare. From the evidence there is blame to be attached to both sides : Mrs Cross for the way she acted with the gun, and Mrs Jones for using unnecessary violence. Both parties would be bound over to keep the peace for six months, finding two sureties for same for £lO each. Each party would have to pay her own ex- - penses. Mr Hay asked if a certificate of dismissal should not be granted, otherwise the charge would still be hanging over Mrs Cross. The Bench considered they had acted correctly in the matter. PROHIBITION ORDER.

A prohibition order was granted for the Geraldine and Temuka districts against John Albert, saddler, who,’ Constable Willoughby stated, was neglecting his business by excessive drinking. The Court then rose.