RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2391, 4 August 1892, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Te-MPKA —Tuesday, August 2, 1892. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] FALSE PRETENCES. Eli Mitchel was charged with having obtained, by moans of false pretences, from Michael Mulhern, the sura of £lO, on the 29th July. Mr Samond appeared for the prosecution. The accused asked for an adjournment. He never meant to defraud, fie merely did jt as a joke, and intended to pay the money. When arrested on the previous evening he had the money ready to come to Temuka on the following morning to pay it. Mr Salmond explained the circumstances. He went into the bar and presented a receipt for £lO as a cheque for £lO, and got change for it. In reply to the Bench the defendant said he was quite willing to pay the money. The fact was he had a little drink ip fiim when he did it. His Worship asked was it a joke • Mr Salmond said it looked like a joke A or some stupid action. The prosecutor had no desire to prosecute if the money were paid, His Worship said it was a joke that had landed tfie defendant in a serious position. However, he would remand the case until that week, and in tfie mean time tfio police cquld mafia enquiries. The defendant would be let out op bail in his own recognisance of £lO, [The accused has since paid the amount and all expenses in connection therewith.] CIVIL CASE. J. Brown v. J. Malarkay—Claim £5 10s. J. Brown, the plaintiff, stated the amount -was due to him for opts, pud for money due to tfio estate of William’s A Colville, the book-debts of which ho had pqrcfiascd. To the defendant: The bags were fit to hold 4 bushels of oats. Henry Williams, proved thro, ’tfio amount of £4 13s was due in the estate of Williams & Cojville,

To defendant: Some of the work was done for your son Frank, but Frank said it was to be put down to you. Your son said the work was for you. To the court: The work was booked to the son first, but the son instructed us to put it to his father’s account. He was working on his father’s farm at the time. The father never objected to pay before to-day. He said the son ought to pay it, but that he would pay it if he had the money. The son paid £1 7s and said the father would pay the balance. John Malarkey, defendant; My son left me about a year and six or seven months ago. I gave him the horses to work, and he was not working for me, he was working for others, at the time he got this work done, and he was to Ire accountable for shoeing the horses. It is quite likely Mr, Hayhurst has a bill of sale over the horses. He could not give exact dates.

To the Court: He sometimes worked for me and sometimes for other people. I promised to pay Williams if my son would not. lam willing to pay it if I get time.

The plaintiff promised defendant time, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs. The Court then rose.

Wednesday, August 3, 1892. [Before J. M. Twomey, Esq., J.P.] obscene language. Michael O’Brien was brought up, charged with having on the previous evening been drunk and disorderly, and using obscene language in a public place. To the charge of having been drunk the accused pleaded guilty, but denied having used obscene language. Michael Mulhearn, licensee of the Royal Hotel, stated that on the previous day the accused was behaving in a disorderly manner in the bar of his hotel. He ordered him out, but he refused to go, and made use of very obscene language. He was under the influence of drink at the time. Arthur Clinch gave similar evidence. He was working in the hotel at the time, and heard the accused making use of obscene language. The defendant had nothing to say, only that he had not used the language. His Worship said that on the Queen’s Birthday last O’Brien had been before the Court before, but his case was dismissed then. His conduct had been bad on that day also, but the police did not proceed against him as it was the Queen’s Birthday. It appeared, however, it was no use to deal leniently with him, and now he would be sent to gaol, with hard labor, for 14 days. The charge for drunkenness would be dismissed. Prisoner : It is very hard. Richard Allen was brought up similarly charged. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of obscene language. Michael Mulhearn and Arthur Clinch gave evidence similiar to that given in the previous case. Both men had been together, and used the language attributed to them. In reply to the Court, Constable Bourke said there was no previous conviction against Allen, but he was a man who drank and talked a good deal. His Worship read a section of the Act showing that the accused could be sent to gaol for 12 months for using the language attributed to him. As, however, this was the first offence, the Court would deal leniently with him. He would be sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labor. He hoped that this would be a warning to him to mind what language he would use in future, for if he came up again he would be dealt severely with. The Court then rose.