RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 2489, 13 April 1893, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT

Temuka—Tuesday, April 11, 1893.

[Before C, A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] ALLEGED WILFUL DAMAGE. Three young men, of respectable appearance, were charged with wilfully damaging a 'spring trap, the property of Wm.' Webb, to the value of £4. Mr Salmond appeared for accused, who pleaded “ Not guilty.” On a second charge of wilfully damaging a gig, the property of A. G. Cox, the plea of “ Not guilty ” was also made. —Mr Salmond stated that the damage was admitted, but that it was not done wilfully or maliciously, W. Webb, storekeeper, Temuka, remembered the night of 31st March. Left his cart in a shed at the back of his store. Next day found it in a ditch just outside his gate. It was about ten yards distant from his gate. The ditch was about three feet deep. The axle of the cart was bent, the step bent,, and the wheel “ dished.” The damage would cost £2 10s to repair. Had spoken to one of accused about it. He denied it at first. The three accused had subsequently paid for the damage. He had not suffered inconvenience. By Mr Salmond : The cart belonged to Mr Owers, Witness was employed as his local manager. Was in Timaru on the night in question. There was a crossing in front of the gate, and if the cart were nor pulled straight it might fall into the ditch. Had no reason to believe the damage was done wilfully. By Constable Bourke : The trap could not have been merely dropped off the crossing. By His Worship ; Was in charge of Mr Owers’s business, and was liable for property under his charge, Frederick Colville, wheelwright, Temuka : Had seen the cart in question, and the ditch where it was found. The axle was bent, also the step, and one wheel dished the wrong way. If one wheel was let into the ditch before the other the damage mentioned would probably be caused. Estimated damage at 60s.

By Mr Salmond : The trap could have been let in without damage. Constable Egan, stationed at Temuka, stated Mr Webb had reported on Good Friday that his trap was in the ditch. Advised him to take it out. (Laughter). Went with him and saw it. It was damagdd as described. Told him he would make enquiry as to how it came there. The ditch was wide, but dry. The cart appeared to have been taken out carefully, and run back into the ditch.

Constable Bourke said on Good Friday received complaints about larrikinism, and as result of enquiry found the accused had done the damage. I hree days afterwards the elder one asked witness not to summons any witnesses, and he would admit the offence and advise the others. When the other two were summoned they considered if it was advisable to advisable to admit the offence or not. Told them they must let witness know, so that he might have opportunity to prepare the case. Practically they admitted the offence, and seemed penitent. By Mr Salmoud: Did not take the proceedings at request of owners "of vehicles. Knew nothing against defendants. Arthur Gladstone Cox, stock agent, Temuka : Left his gig in the yard at his house the evening previous to Good Friday. Missed it in the morning, and found it about nine o’clock in the evening in a disused gravel pit in the riverbed in about two feet of water. Could see where it was pushed over a small bank. It appeared to have run into the lowest level. Had to go into the water to get it out. The gig was not damaged. The lamps were. They were second-hand, and worth about 20s. The lamp appeared to bo broken by contact with a tree in the yard. The riverbed would be about three-quarters of a mile distant. Should not nave looked for it in the place where it was found. Accused had made good the damage. By Mr Salmon d: The chief damage would be done by the lamp striking the tree. It would probably be done accidentally. Did not know if it was a bright night. Mr Salmond contended that there was no evidence of wilful damage, as required under the provisions of the Damage to Property Act under which the information was laid. It was merely a “ lark.” The evidence of the owners was distinctly that the damage was likely to be caused accidentally. Further, the damage had been made good, and counsel thought that the sum of £i was quite enough to pay for a piece of larrikinism done on the spur of the moment. His Worship did not see the matter in the same light. The accused certainly acted wilfully. For their own amuse* ment they dragged other people’s property about and damaged it. It might be a “ lark,” but it was one that entailed the liability of two mouths’ imprisonment. As it was the first case before him for some time, and the accused had made good the damage, he should deal as leniently as possible with them. Such conduct, h' >wever, must be suppressed. He should inflict a fine of 20s for each offence, with costs of witnesses. The witnesses declined to ask expenses.

MAINTENANCE. A case in which a mother twice married and separated from her second husband claimed to be supported by a son by by the first marriage was heard at length. Mr Snlmond appeared for informant, and Mr Wilson Smith for the defendant. The evidence of the mother showed that she had, after her husband left her, lived with son, and acted as his housekeeper. He subsequently married, and she left of her own free will. She applied to her elder sons in the North Island to assist in supporting her, and they offered to take her, but had neither sent her money nor the means of reaching them. She had only received some 12s in six months, part of which (9s) her younger son had given her. She was well, and ablejto work, but had a child of eleven years to keep. She had been living on credit, and was now practically destitute. Mr Wilson Smith contended that his client was utterly unable to contribute towards the cost of his mother, but His Worship insisted that something should be done to assist her. It was disgraceful that she should bo left in such a condition. Mr Wilson Smith asked to have his client placed in the box. His Worship thought it would be better for him to pay 10s a week towards her support, and in the meantime the other brothers could be communicated with. Mr Wilson Smith said his client was willing to pay 20s and have the case adjourned for a month, and pay the mother’s fare to the North Island if the other brothers were agreeable. Mr Salmond objected. Mr Wilson Smith then put his client into the box, and his evidence showed that after paying expenses he had only 30a a week to maintain himself and wife. He did aot squander his rnoiiey, and had

supported himself since he was thirteen years of age. His father’s property had been muddled away or dissipated by his stepfather. He had kept his mother for some time, and was willing to do so now in his own house until his brothers could be communicated with. His further evidence, somewhat reluctantly given, showed that the domestic relations between mother and son were considerably strained.

His Worship, under the circumstances, declined to make an order. He would adjourn the case for a month on condition the mother was supported in her son’s house. In the meantime the other brothers could be communicated with, and he trusted an arrangement would be arrived at. CIVIL CASES. W. Bowman v. A. Bowman. —Adjourned for 14 days at request of defendant. Same v. J. Spillane —Claim £ll9s 6d. — Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Same v. J. Quinn —Claim 17s. —Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Mr Salmond appeared for plaintiff in the above cases. J. Cunnard v. G. Piskey—Claim £4 19s ; Judgment summons. —After a long hearing His Worship made an order for payment of 2s 6d a week; in default 14 days. Mr Salmond appeared for Judgment debtor. Aspiuall & Salmond v. Farnie—Claim £9 Gs. Mr Salmond for plaintiffs.' J udgment by default for amount claimed and costs. A HARVESTING CLAIM. T. & A. Austin v. S. Breadley—-Claim £3l 13s 6d, for harvest work. The sum of £2B 3s 6d was paid into Court. Mr Salmond for plaintiffs, Mr Wilson Smith for defendants.

The following evidence was taken : A. Austin, farmer, Orari, gave evidence as to making an agreement to harvest certain wheat and oats for defendant. (Agreement produced.) Did the work, but defendant complained of two stacks that requii'ed extra work. Asked him to point them out, but defendant said; “Never mind; I must not be too particular with you.” John Pearce was there. Next heard about the job after the gale of February. The wind blew Mr Breadley’s stacks about. They stood better than any stacks in the district. After the gale Breadley asked him again to go to the stacks. Told him they were passed, and refused to go. Received written notice about the stacks. Sent in his bill, and about a week after requested payment, which was refused. Had charged 11s 6d for 5 acres of oats. The original agreement was for 9s, but as the crop was blown about defendant promised to give 2s 6d an acre extra if the crop was cut “ all one way.” He had charged fur cutting 64 acres, as that was what he had himself been paid for. Cross-examined: Did not know for certain there were 64 acres. The stacks took nine hours “to draw.” Did not see the stacks after the gale. Breadley had not mentioned the bad stacking frequently—only twice. T. Austin, sou of previous witness, gave evidence as to bargain made re cutting oats, and also as to Breadley asking when the stacks were to be finished. This was after the gale. When witness took the account, Breadley only disputed an acre measurement in the oats which hsd only been cut one way. Agreed to take oli 2s Gd. Breadley said he could not settle up by Saturday following. Supposed he meant to deduct 27s for men’s time fixing up stacks. The stacks were properly built and drawn, and only suffered a little by the gale. Re-examined: Worked about eight hours at“ drawing” the stacks. Did not draw them by hand. Did not do them as well as their own. They were not paid to do it. There might have been less than four acres of oats cut one way, but did not think so.

John Pearce, farmer, Orari, gave evidence corroborative of plaintitts’ story about defendant’s remarks about not being too particular. Had seen the stacks. Thought a tidy job had been made. Helped to put them to rights after the gale. Some of them were badly blown about. Edmund Burke, farmer, Geraldine,also gave evidence. Tlxe stacks at a distance of three or four chains looked to be well put up. For the defence, Mr Wilson Smith called. S. Breadley, farmer and hotelkeeper,' Orari. Was the leasee of the Orari racecourse. Had never had an accurate survey made. Had once paid for sowing 64 acres. By a patent drill record found it only 60 acres. Paid for ploughing 60 acres, the area mentioned in the agreement, When Austin was cutting the oats witness complained about tho work, but promised 2s 6d an acre if cut “ one way.” He cut part of it “ one way” while witness was present. Could see plainly by tho wheel marks where it had been cut “ one way.” The stacks were never “drawn,” and never passed by witness. Had repeatedly asked them to finish the work, and ultimately gave them written notice that he should put men on to finish at their expense. By Mr Salmond : A drill such as witness used would record accurately every bushel sown, and if properly set the area sown. Swore positively Austin’s attention was drawn to there being only 60 acres in wheat. To the best of his knowledge never mentioned the stacks in the presence of Austin, sen., and Pearce. Before the gale took place the stacks were not “drawn.” Repaired them at his own cost. Had since had them « drawn ” at an expense of 275. It was not the fault of witness’s men that the necessity for “drawing” occurred. The work lately done was jjiot solely on account of the gale. W. Hawke, farmer, Geraldine: Had seen the stacks in question. They had not been properly “drawn.” Had examined them carefully. His Worship said he should like to have had a little more evidence about tho a drawing.” He was inclined to attach some little importance to Pearce’s evidence, who was a disinterested party, as to the evidence about Breadley’s being (satisfied to let P'e job pass, although not quite satisfactory. With regard to the area, he thought that 60 acres as mentioned in the agreement was correct. Ho also considered 5s a fair equivalent for extra labor in cutting the oats, He should, however, only allow 13s Gd for “drawing” the stacks. Costs of Ooxxrt and witnesses would follow judgment. No solicitors’ coats would be allowed. The Court then rose,