MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2645, 12 April 1894, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesdav, April 10th, 1804. [Before C. A, Wray, Eaq., S.M.j CIVIL CASES. J. Brown v. J. Davis. —The Stipendiary Magistrate gave his decision in this case, which had come before the Court at last sitting. Ho decided that the defendant had no claim for loss of time, and gave judgment for plaintiff for 17s 10d and costs on that scale. A. Russell v. Hugh Brosuahau—Claim £5 IGs Bd.—Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, and costs. BREACH 01’ LICENSING ACT. Jos. Whitehead was charged with, on the 28th of March last, being thou a prohibited person under section I*l7 of the Act of 1881, obtaining liquor from Henry Lee, a licensed publican. Mr Salmond appeared for defendant, who pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Salmond said that while not disputing the fact that liquor had been obtained, yet ho objected to the information on the ground that a minute of the order of the Court should have been served on the defendant. ft was practically a disobeying of an order of the Court, and the usual steps in such cases should have been followed. His Worship was of opinion that in this case he was merely asked to tie d with a breach of the Licensing Act, and after some further discussion it was agreed to hear the evidence. Henry Loo, licensee of the Crown Hotel: Was served with a notice that the defendant was a prohibited person. Told

him not to ask any of the family to serve him. Did not say why. Gave him no permission to help himself. Mr Salmond said it was a question if the liquor had been procured from a licensed person. There was no denial that liquor had been procured. Eugene Egan, constable at Temuka, said that when he served the information the defendant said he did not know there was any haem in his taking a drop. In reply to His Worship the clerk stated that the defendant was not in Court when the order was made against him. The liquor was obtained on the 29th. His Worship said that he thought .it possible in this case that the defendant did not know that he was prohibited. Under the circumstances he should dismiss the information. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Frank Godwin and James Godwin were charged with unlawfully using obscene language at Arowhenua, within the hearing of the public. Mr Salmoud for defendants. J. F. Douglas, resident in the township of Arowhenua, remembered Sunday, April Ist. On that date heard some females screaming. Went in the direction of the noise, and saw defendants in a section they occupied. There was a general noise. Heard the noise as he came up on the road, and heard the senior defendant, Frank, say he would split his head. The expression was one of a continued stream of bad language. James was also swearing. Knew Thomas Godwin, considered . the language was used towards him and the father. People all around could hear, and there were a lot of children about. By Mr Salmond: There were seven or eight people engaged in the row. Several he knew by sight. Was sure he was making no mistake. All the bad language was used by the two defendants. Thera might have been others talking before. During the ten minutes he was there the father and Tom did not use bad language, at all events in witness’s hearing. Heard the expressions used from a distance of about three chains. Was prepared to swear that it was Frank who spoke. There were several passers-by, and a good many neighbors. By the constable : Had no reason for appearing there except as a witness. Joseph Folaschek: Remembered Sunday, April Ist. Was milking in the next section and heard a row. It appeared to him that the father came to take'eome things away from the trap-house. He heard bad language. Mr Salmond objected to evidence being given as to language heard by a witness in an adjoining section. Witness said that he heard bad language used as he crossed the streets. He mentioned some of the expressions used. Did not notice Frank so much. His attention was rivetted on James, who was most violent. Persona could easily hear the language in the street. It was heard by people in witness’s own house. By Mr Salmoud : When he arrived on the scene Frank, Tom, James, and the father were there, and the mother and one daughter. The mother hit the old man with a stick, and as he was about to retaliate Frank raised an axe. Douglas was first on the street, and afterwards on witness’s section. Mr Salmond said the defence was that no such language was used, or if so it could not be heard in a public place, and further that it was under very violent provocation. The family lived unhappily together, and the defendant, Frank, had to live apart and support his mother. Frank Godwin gave evidence that he lived with his mother, his brother James, and his sisters in Arowhenua. He had an elder brother, Tom, and with him the father lived. On Sunday about 3 o’clock went into the shed with a young fellow, and his father came in, and there was a tow. He used a very opprobrious expression to witness. Witness said he did not want to have anything to do with him. The father then left and conversed with Tom. In the evening the father again used bad expressions. Witness said he wanted no more of it. Tom came in and threatened to split witness’s head. The sisters ran in and told the mother Tom wa's killing witness. Further details of what appeared to be a general row took place, in which it appeared the father and Tom were the most violent. Witness positively denied using any obscene language. As far as he knew James only told his father to go home to his four-year-old infant. By Constable Bourke: His father was froir 60 to 66 years old. Was not 72. His father hid no money. Ho could work. Agnes Godwin, sister of defendants, stated that on the day in question she saw Tom throwing hia coat oft’ and rush at Frank. Tom appeared to be trying to take the axe away. Did not hear Tom use any bad language, but her father did. James did not swear. Saw Douglas and Polaschek.

By Constable Bourke: Father was not near when Frank had the axe.

By the Court : The family had no reason to make the father leave. He was always quarrelsome. They did not turn him out.

Gertrude Godwin, another sister, gave evidence corroborative of that of last witness.

James Godwin, one of the defendants : Saw Tom pull off his coat; witness was down the road. When ho came up Tom and Frank were scuffling about the axe. His father was inside hammering his mother with a stick. Did not see Douglas nor Polaschek when he arrived.

By the Court: Did not hear any bad language.

His Worship said ho had no doubt there was bad language u.->ed by both parties, and that a very discreditable scene took place upon a Sunday afternoon. Ho severely cautioned the defendants, and hoped they would be more careful in future. Any future odeuces would be severely punished. The neighbors were quite right in bringing the matter forward. Constable Bourke asked that an order should be made for witnesses expenses. After some discussion the Court allowed Ids for expenses. OBSTRUCTING THE THOROUGHFARE. John Scott was charged with obstructing the thoroughfare at Tomuxa by leaving his horse and dray on the road in front of the saleyards. Defendant stated that ho was ignorant of having committed an offence. —Constable Bourke said that when spoken to the defendant must have been conscious of an offence, as he g ive the constable a wrong name.— Constable Egan said defendant gave his name as George Sullivan, and living at the RangiLata Bridge. John Allan, tor a similar offence, pleaded ignorance. Ho had not attended a sale for two years. Thus. Palmer, fur a similar offence, did not appear. F. Wolibnden admitted leaving a dray His brother told him to take the horse to the smith. Simon Conghhn pleaded that lie was unaware of the regulations. Benjamin Kelly did not appear. James Sullivan appeared by his shepherd aud pleaded ignorance.

Geo. Meredith was charged with leaving a horse and trap in such a way as not to be under control. He did not tie the horse up. Root. Wood admitted leaving a horse and trap unattended, but said he was always close by. He was engaged selling onions.—Constable Bourke gave evidence. Richard Hoare was charged with a similar offence. His boy had come down with the trap, tied the horse up, and left it to seek his father in the yard. Colin Campbell was charged with tying his horse up to a fence near the yards. Had not been at a sale for 12 years. Robert Skinner admitted a similar offence. D. S. Pearse was charged with leaving a waggon and two horses unattended.— Defendant said he brought rams to the gale. The yards were full, and he was told to leave the rams in the waggon, take the horses out and tie them up, and they would be safe. There was a man in charge most of the time. James Manning was charged with leaving a horse tied on the road. His Worship said in his opinion it was a pity no provision was made at the yards. Strangers coming down for the first time and seeing horses tied up would naturally think it was a recognised practice. He suggested the farmers should try and arrange for a yard. At the same time the offences had been proved. He should impose a nominal fine of Is, without costs. BREACH OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE ACT. J. Opie, butcher, Winchester, was charged, on the information of E. Egan, inspector of slaughterhouses, with having failed to furnish returns in accordance with the Act.—Defendant pleaded that he was ignorant of the necessity of making returns at the intervals provided. —Fined 20s and costs.