RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 2510, 1 June 1893, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Geraldine —Tuesday, May 30,

[Before Messrs W. M. Moore, H. W, Moore, R. H, Pearpoinfc, and M. C. Orbell, Esq’s, J.P.’s.] ALLEGED ASSAULT, Charles Trengrove was charged that ho did on May 24th, at Geraldine, unlawfully assault and beat George Ward by striking him on the face. Defendant pleaded guilty, but said he would defend the case. George Ward, plantiff, deposed that Tengrove was a tenant of his, and was in arrears for rent. Called on him for money and defendant said he had none. Defendant said he was earning £1 per day, and witness told him he was well able to pay his rent, and if he would not pay he would have to leave the house. Witness was standing with his hands in his pockets when defendant suddenly came up and struck witness on the eye, and said “ That’ll pay your rent for you.” To defendant: Did not say “No more of your promises,” or use any bad language in the presence of defendant’s children. Did not push defendant down. Dr Fish gave evidence that Ward came to him with a black eye the morning after the proceedings, and said that Trengrove had struck him. Charles Trengrove deposed that plaintiff c\me to his house and said “Have you got the money Charlie.” Witness said “ No,” and plaintiff said “ I wont have any more of your promises.” Witness said “ Don’t gWgar amongst my children.” Plaintiff then sqid »Yqp I’ll make you pay,” and pushed witness, and the latter then callgd plaintiff a coward, and struck him cm the eyp. Elizabeth Trengrove, daughter of defendant, corroborated her father’s evidence. Defendant, recalled by the Renph, said that he never told plaintiff that he earned £1 per day. The Bench considered that an assault had been proved, and fined defendant £l, or in default hours’ imprisonment. CIVIL GASES, Henry Scott (Mr F. Wjlgou Smith) v. John Norton (Mr J. W. Salmoud)— Claim £2 15s for service to a mare by the horse Hunnington. Henry Scott, plaintiff, deposed to being owner of the horse Hunnington, and travelled it last season, Hjg tprms, ascording to advertisement, were £3 3s, and with guarantee, £3 10a. Norton ip November gave him » mare to gerye. Agreed to do it for £2 10s, and 5s groomage fee for season, seeing that it was late in jfche season, , He served the mare regularly, and then gen* in hfs account on March 7th, but gotnoreply till he sent another account on April l§th, Defendant then wrote that he did not think the mare was in foal. To Mr Salmond: In the agreement with Mr Norton nothing was said about a guarantee. D|d not say “ If there is no foal, there will be nothing tq pay.” Remembered going one day with the bill to see the defendant, and went to the paddock half a mile away where the men were working, to find Norton. Said to OUQ Of the “ h that V[

but did not ask if she was in foal. Did not remember speaking to the other man. To Mr Smith : The groomage fee was omitted by mistake from the first account. John Hay, groom : Stated the customary practice with regard to horse service. With a guarantee it was not usual to look for the money till January, when the mare had foaled. Owners might sometimes pay before foaling, if they were sure of a foal, but they could not be compelled to do this. He knew the horse Hunnington, and considered £2 10s with groomage fee very reasonable for service.

John Norton, defendant, deposed that he agreed with Scott that' he would take a guarantee, and would not take a season. Scott agreed to give him a guarantee for £2 10s as the least he could do it for. Told Scott he would take this, aud would pay in March if the mare foaled. Scott was so sure of the mare foaling that he agreed to this. To Mr Smith : Did not see Scott make an entry in his book when the agreement was made. Got an account in March. Was away from home when the account came, and as the mare did not foal did not expect to pay. Had horse service before without a foal aud did not have to pay. George Wade, farm hand, re nembered working Mr Norton’s mare some time ago. There was another man in the paddock, Scott came up, as witness thought, to look at the mare, and asked if the mare was in foal. Told him he (witness) did not think she was in foal. Ho asked for Mr Norton, and also asked the other man if the mare was in foal.

Edward O’Neal, laborer, deposed that he got a service for a mare from Hunnington at one time. The agreement was neither a season nor a strict guarantee. The mare was to be served there and then, and Scott would not require to look after her again. The price was 30s.

Mr Salmond submitted that the case was one of oath against oath, and pointed out that the balance of evidence, if any, was on the defendant’s side, and that there were several descrep mcies about defendant’s evidence compared with the evidence of independent witnesses. A strong presumption in favor of defendant was Scott’s making enquiries as to whether the mare was in foal, and going half a mile to the paddock to see it. Mr Smith, on the other hand, contended that the strong point in his case was the fact that no repudiation was made of the account when it was sent to defendant, and the letter received from him six weeks after was only a halfhearted one intimating that he did not think the mare was in foal.

The Bench thought that the evidence was rather conflicting. As far as Mr Scott going to the paddock was concerned, he might just as likely have gone to see Mr Norton as the mare. Taking the evidence all through they thought the balance was in favour of plaintiff, for whom they gave judgment with costs. Elizabeth Crocker (Mr F. Wilson Smith) v. M. Tiney—Claim £2, service as nurse to Mrs Tiney.

Defendant stated that he had hired another lady as nurse, and produced receipts of her account for same. He denied hiring the services of Mrs Crocker, and said he paid her for washing and other work.

Mr Smith stated that he had only been instructed by his client half an hour before the court opened, and asked for a nonsuit so that he could bring the case on again and procure witnesses. The nonsuit was granted, the plaintiff to pay costs.

BREACH OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.

Three ratepayers were each charged on the information of the Inspector of Nuisances with committing a breach of the Municipal Corporations Act by not employing the town scavenger for the removal of nightsoil. Mr F. Wilson Smith appeared for the prosecution, and said the cases were simply as a test, and the Board of Health did not wish to press for a heavy penalty. The proceedings were made under Section 300 of the Municipal Corporations Act, which reads :—“ That any person without legal authority from the Town Board who empties or causes to be emptied any closet, privy, or cesspool, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10.” C. E. Sherratt, clerk to the Geraldine Town Board, deposed that the board had adopted the pan system on March 7th last, to come into force on April Ist. Notice was given of this in the local paper, and it was well known amongst ratepayers generally. The three ratepayers charged had not authority from the board for removing nightsoil without the town scavenger,

The first ratepayer called said that the offence had been committed in ignorance by a stranger in her employ, and that she did not know anything about the matter till it was done.

The next ratepayer called admitted the offence, but confessed ignorance as to the direct working of the Act. He was under the impression that it was not compulsory that the scavenger should be employed in a case like his, where there was no niusance, and all excrement, along with stable manure, was carted to his farm. The third ratepayer said that he had instructed the town scavenger to empty his closet and offered him the money. The scavenger refused on the ground that he had no right to take it. As the scavenger could not come round in his official capacity for a fortnight, and the closet inquired emptying at once the ratepayer said he would stand the consequence and pay tfie money to the board the next day. she scavenger's then did the work, but not in his official capacity, and the ratepayer afterwards paid the money into the Town Board. This ratepayer stated that there were 160 ratepayers in the town and only about 70 had paid the scavenger fees, and he considered it very unfair that ratepayers who had paid should be mede a test of.

The Bench said they were sorry that they could not dismiss the cases. It seemed to them that the Town Board had not given the matter sufficient publicity, nor made it* clear qnqugh tq the public, and that they bad gone a long way to make a popular thing very unpopular. They had no option but to impose a small fine of Is and costs. The Court then rose.