RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2325, 3 March 1892, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, March 1, 1892

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] BREACH OF COUNTY BY-LAWS. William Oldfield was charged with having taken a traction engine along the road in Temuka without having a man before and a man behind such engine on the 25th ult. Mr White appeared for the County Council and Mr Postlethwaite for the defendant. John Morton, constable in charge of police in Temuka : Saw the defendant on the day mentioned in the information driving an engine along the road without having anyone behind or before it. He saw him twice on the same day. To Mr Postlethwaite: There were two on the engine. They could not see through the combine. There was traffic on the street in the morning, but not in the evening. William Oldfield, the defendant, said it was possible for him to see before and behind. He always stopped when he thought it possible that he could do any harm. To Mr Postlethwaite : Could see along the road. Had never caused any annoyance. Always stopped when anyone was met. By Mr White : On one occasion had a combine behind. Could not see through it, but could see a considerable way past it. This was his first trip with it. Mr Postlethwaite said that under the section under which the information was laid it was only necessary to have two men on the engine. He considered that was all that was necessary. Even if guilty defendant had never caused any annoyance, etc. If held that more than the two men were necessary he would ask that defendant be dealt lightly with, especially as it was his first offence and also first season. Defendant was also charged with crossing the Opihi bridge with a traction engine drawing a combine not detached 40 feet from the same, and also with crossing the Temuka bridge with a traction engine weighing more than six tons. Mr White quoted the authority of the council to make by-laws, and read section 19 dealing with the same. The object of the by-law in question was that there should not be too much weight on ar\y one span of the bridge. F. W. Stubbs, clerk to the Geraldine County Council, produced the special resolution of tl\q council under which the offence was laid. Hy Mr Postlethwaite : He had not a ’ copy of the public notification of the resolution under which the by-law was made. It was deposited at the office of the council. James Radford, clerk of works for the Geraldine County Council: Was crossing the Opihi bridge on the 25th February. Saw a traction and combine approaching. Tied up his horse and walked along the bridge and met them. Oldfield was steering and Lyon was driving. Oldfield came off the engine. Asked him if he had read the by-laws. He said he had not had time. Told him. he had had them three weeks, and that he was breaking them by pat having his engine 40 feet away from the combine. He asked to be let off. Told him he could not, as he was making a regular thing of it. He had crossed the bridge before. The combine was about eight feet away from the engine —the legth of the draw-bar. The danger was through the weight being put on the one span of the bridge. ,

By Mr Postlethwaite : Knew that he had crossed the Temuka bridge before by seeing its tracks. Was about five chains away when it crossed. Did not warn him, but would have done so if he had been near enough. By Mr White: Had no feeling in the matter. Was only doing his duty to the council.

Mr Postlethwaite drew attention to the by-laws, which in no case mentioned a “combine.” The only words used were carriage and waggon, which were not to carry more than two tons on each pair of wheels. '

Ji/jThe Bench; Then you mean to say that it is the reading of the by-law that a waggon, whether empty or loaded, must be detached, whereas a combine might be drawn directly behind the engine when crossing a bridge ?

Mr White submitted that a combine came under the definition of a carriage.

Mr Postlethwaite contended that the combine was the natural accompaniment of a traction, and the County Council would have definitely mentioned that if it was intended to include combines in the definition of a carriage. W. Oldfield : Had been threshing for 20 years. It was the usual practice to hook up the combine by the drawbar and draw it behind the engine. If the combine were drawn by a wire rope it might get on the lock, and an accident occur. By Mr White : The by-laws were left at his house about three weeks before the 25th. He had been away from home and had not had time to read them. James Radford, recalled, said the usual custom with other machine proprietors was to use a rope and have a man at each side to prevent the machine from getting on the lock.

His Worship said that it appeared to him that the intention of the by-law was to include anything carried on wheels and drawn by the engine should be separated 40 feet from it. In regard to charge of crossing the Temuka bridge with the engine, the offence was admitted.

W. Oldfield said that he was at Christchurch at the time of the flood, and when he returned home his crop was damaged, and he turned to and attended to it. In the meantime the by-laws were delivered at his house. He had not been at home in daylight since. On the day the offence was committed attempted to cross the river, but had to back out, and- then decided to cross the bridge. By Mr White ; Did not try to cross the Manse ford. Did not known the by-laws were in force since the 24th of January. Previously only owned a portable. By Mr Postlethwaite: Had the traction only three weeks. Would not notice regulations affecting them previous to owning one.

His Worship presumed that the charge was brought more as a warning than with the view of inflicting a penalty. Mr White said he did not think the council desired to have a heavy penalty inflicted, but he drew His Worship’s attention that the case was one of great interest to the ratepayers, as the cost o£ repairing the bridges would be heavy at some time.

His Worship inflicted a penalty of 20s on each information, with solicitor’s fee, £2 2s, on first information, and costs, 265.

John R, Goldsmith was charged with, having taken a traction engine along the public road without having a man. in ' front or behind to warn people. John Morton, sworn, gave evidence to the effect that on the 20th inst. ho saw the defendant and another man in. charge of an engine and combine on the Milford road. He was driving with Mr Hayhurst at the time and the latter stopped. When he stopped a man came from the side of the combine and claimed that he was in advance. Told Goldsmith, he should summons him for not having a. man in front and behind.

Defendant was represented by Fraok Hall, one of his employes, and in replyto him witness said he could not swear thera was not a man behind. There might hava been one in the galley. Could not see any one in front. J.T. M. Hayhurst: Was with. Mr Morton on the day in question. Saw no person in front of the engine. Pulled in the horse about three chains before approaching tho engine. The man in charge drew thtQ engine to one aide as they approached. * F. Hall stated that he was on the combine when they observed Mr Hayhurst, A man was walking alongside the engine to take charge of any horse that might be frightened. Saw Mv Hayhurst a quarter of a mile away, and the engine was eased up. The man’s duty was to look out, and there seemed no occasion for him to walk in front after they left the town. He walked alongside the engine with hia hand on the big wheel.

His Worship was inclined to give defendant the benefit of the doubt in thiscase, which would be dismissed.

BREACH OF THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE ACT,

Eli Mitchell was charged with neglecting to supply slaughter house returns.. The information was laid under Saction 26. Defendant did not appear. Eugene Egan, Inspector of Slaughter Houses, stated that he had difficulty in getting returns from the defendant. He was vory negligent. He was expected to forward returns, every week. He had occasion to caP for them more than onca. Fiwod 40?, and costs. ASSAULT. Isaac Morris v. W. Sweet. Mr Salmond* appeared for the informant, and Mi% Postlethwaite for the defendant. yj Isaac Morris stated that on the lOthi February last lie was at the Temuka. Hotel at about six o’clock in the eveningWhen he went in there were present. Messrs Sweet, Dyson, Vallender andl others. Sweet almost immediately got up and thrust his fists into witness’ face, and said, “ You wanted your son to give me and my son a hiding, but you couldn’t do it.” He then struck witness and knocked him dovrn. Vallender interposed and said, “ Sweet, you don’t strike Morris again,” and with Dyson removed him to the, passage. After a time he came in. again and used uncomplimentary remarks, Yallender stood by witness and some one* removed defendant.

By Mr Postleth waite: Was positive when hei entered the hotel that Sweet Wfjtev there,, and also Sweet, Dyson, YaHendeJ; Christmas, the landlord, and he believed* Mrs Bowles, the proprietress Was positive he was knocked down by Sweet after a few minutes conversation Mr J Dyson had with witness. Had a weak ' whiskey that day.. Had no conversation in the passage with. Sweet. Had nevesr

abused Sweet when passing witness’ garden. - The blow he received was painful for a week or so. Was not on friendly terms with defendant. By Mr Salmond : Had not spoken to Sweet since January 9th. Evan Vallender : Remembered being in the Temuka Hotel on the 10th February. Mr Morris came in and stood against the door. Sweet was slightly under the influence of drink, and raked up some old grievance (witness could not say what), and began sparring at Morris. Saw Sweet striking at Morris, but could not say if he hit him. If he did the blow would not hurt a mosquito. Did not knock Morris down. There was some sort of a scramble, and Morris, Sweet, and witness all fell down. Did mot think there was anything serious in it. Morris said he would summons Sweet.

By Mr Postlethwaite : Tried to pacify Sweet. Could not actually say if Morris was struck. Mr Postlethwaite contended there was no case to answer.

His Worship asked if there was likely to be a repetition of the assault. Mr Salmond thought so, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the protection of the Court.

W. Sweet said that the informant had on three separate occasions insulted him. When he met him at the hotel thought Morris was going to strike him as he had his stick up. Had no illwill towards informant, and would undertake not to annoy him. By Mr Salmond : Would swear he did not strike Morris. Could not say who spoke first. Did not strike at him, only put his hand up. Vallender pushed him (witness) up against Dyson. Felt aggrieved and told Vallender he should have to settle with him. Mr Salmond said that if no penalty was inflicted he should ask that defendant pay costs. His Worship did not think there was any danger. The case would be dismissed, each party to pay his own costs. civil cases. J. M. Twomey v. Geo. Hamill—Claim ,£3. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Same v. Jas. Crawford—Claim £4lls Bd. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. J. Martin v. John Barrett—Claim £4. Edward Pilbrow, appeared as agent for J. Martin, of Christchurch. Had a general authority apt agent, but no special one to sue. Case adjourned until next Court day to enable Mr Pilbrow to obtain requisite authority. The Court then rose.