THIS DAY.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4766, 18 April 1884, Page 2

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. James Hay was brought up for sentence for cruelly treating a horse on which he took the mails to Paeroa, by riding it when it was in an unfit state. His Worship said that though the mail contractor had already been fined for the offence, defendant, who rode the horse, had treated it cruelly, and would be fined. 10s, and costs 11s. DOG BEGISTBATION. Eichard Morton, whose case of nonregistration had been adjourned, was again charged.—Mr Mason said he had registered the dog, but had not paid the oosts. —Fined Is and costs. i RIDIN ' ON THE FOOTPATH. Adolphus Eolton, a lad, was charged with the above offence at Parawai, on the 10th inst., and pleaded guilty to unknowingly breaking the law. E. Lambert deposed that while passing along the footpath, defendant, who was on the road, addressed some remark to him, and when he did tfot answer, rode up on the footpath behind him. Defendant said he rode up to ask the time, but His Worship said the practice of riding on the footpath should be put a stop to, and fined him 2s 6d, and 4s costs. SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO A PROHIBITED PERSON. . John Smith was charged on the information of Constable Haslett, with supplyiDg Patrick Kelly, a prohibited person, with liquor on the Bth inst. Constable Haslett deposed that he was on duty on the night of the Bth inst., and ,saw defendant go into Mr Vaugban's Hotel, come out, and go to an old workshop in Pollen street, near Albert street, where Kelly was. Saw Smith take out a bottle and give it to Kelly, who filled a glass with beer and drank the liquor. He went in and spoke to Kelly, who dropped the bottle and glass under a cart, and went out. Witness took possession of the bottle (produced), which had beer in it. Spoke to accused, who admitted supplying the liquor, knowing Kelly was a pro> hibited person, but asked him to say nothing about it. Have often seen Kelly and Smith together since the former's prohibition. Defendant stated-that he did not supply the liquor to Kelly; he was shutting up his shop when the»sonstable rushed in, picked up a bottle from the bench at which he worked, and went off without saying a word. He bought no beer on that night.

His Worship asked Sergt.-Major Kiely whether he conld prove that the liquor had been sold, and he said the person who sold it had only been at the hotel a few days, and could not recognise the person with certainty.

His Worship asked accused whether he would make his statement upon oath, but he declined.

Patrick Kelly was examined, and stated upon oath that he and Smith met at the door of the shop in question, and Smith did not bring any beer, nor did witness drink any. They were talking together when the constable went in, made a remark to the effect, " Where's the beer," and went out. Did not see a bottle or glass about the place.

Jane Winepress, barmaid at Mr Yaughan's, deposed that she was in the bar on the night of the Bth inst. Served several persons with beer in bottles; had seen accused in the bar several times, and had served him with beer but could not recollect serving him on that night, Kemembered Constable Haslett coming in on the evening in question, and asking if she had served a man like accused with beer, and she replied that she did not recollect doing so. Had never to her recollection, served accused with liquor at night.

Constable Hogg deposed to Constable Haslett relating the circumstances of the case to him on the same evening; visited the house and found a glass on the floor, I which was damp as if some liquor had been spilt on it. His Worship reviewed the evidence, saying he had no doubt the defendant and Kelly were lying, and had there been sufficient evidence, be would have com* mitted them for perjury, but defendant had screened himself by refusing to be sworn. He had no doubt defendant had supplied the liquor, and he would fine him £5 and costs, or in default one month's imprisonment. NO LIGHT. W. J. McKee, of the Coach and Horses Hotel, was charged with neglecting to keep a light burning in front of his premises on the night of the 13th inst., but the charge was dismissed on it being proved that defendant had left the light burning, but it had gone out owing to a defect in the metre. ASSAULT. John McDonald Syms was charged with assaulting Sarah Tetley on the 15th inst., by striking her on the head. Mr Miller appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty.

Sarah Tetley deposed that with her husband she went to My Syms' about 6.30 on Tuesday evening. Her husband expressed his intention of having tea, and witness said she would have tea too. Syms replied, " I'll be d if you will," and without further ado put her out, she struggling with him. Her arm was hurt, and Syms struck her on the head.

To Mr Miller—Syms ordered me out, and I replied that I would go when my husband did.

J. M. Syms stated that on returning from Te Aroha, his wife complained that Mrs Tetley had insulied her, and when plaintiff came in 6,n the Tuesday he told her that h,e would not have her in his house. As she would not go he had to put her out. The injuries complained of were caused by plaintiff's struggles j he did not strike her at all.

F. Tetley corroborated the last witness' testimony.

His Worship considered that defendant, as a publican, had shown a want of discretion in turning out the plaintiff; ho should have sent for the police. There were evidently faults on both aides, but the assault had not been, proved, and he must dismiss the 9a.se. A crosi3«aefcion between the parties was withdrawn. .PROVOKING- liANGUAGE. Sarah Tetley was charged by J. M. Syms with using provoking language to his wife oia. Monday last. Mr Millerappeared for the plan tiff. Jane Syms, wife of plrfhtiff deposed that* Mrs Tetley's daughter bad left her without any warniag, This girl bad bought ft j

hat- in advance on hec wages, and left before it had been paid for, witness kept the hat in default. Mrs Tetley, came for it, and when witness refused to give it up she used most insulting language., _ Charles Coates, aged 32, and son of last witness, gave corroborative testimony. T. Manning saw Mrs Tetley go into the hotel, and make some insulting remarks regarding Mrs Syins. Mrs Tetley said that her husband was the cause of the trouble; he should not have been .in the hotel playing cards, where he was too frequently; She had gone- to the hotel, and asked Mrs Syms to return her daughter's hat. F. Tetley, upon being asked if he was willing to enter into a recognisance thafc his wife should keep the peace for six months, declined,to do so, stating he did not believe she could. The Bench warned the defendant, and bound her over to keep the peace, in her own recognisances of £25, for six months.