RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 257, 2 January 1873, Page 8

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, ' Esq., E.M., ! and Dr. Stewart, J.P.) Monday, December 23.' Before the proceedings commenced, his Worship the Eesident Magistrate intimated that for the future criminal cases would be taken at ten o'clock on court days, instead of eleven o'clock as heretofore. John Kelly was charged with being drunk and disorderly. Kelly, it appeared, had been arrested previously on a similar charge, and liberated on bail. He took advantage of being at large to again indulge in spirituous and fermented liquors to an inordinate extent, forfeited his bail, and was again arrested. On the present occasion he was too drunk to appear in court, and was remanded till the following day. James Thomas, charged with being drunk and disorderly, had also been liberated on bail, and not putting in an appearance, his bail, 403., was forfeited. Michael v. Sogg. — This was a claim of £20 for breach of agreement and damages occasioned thereby. Mr. Mouat appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant. Plaintiff stated that some time ago he agreed with defendant that the latter should erect a dividing fence between their respective properties. It was to consist of a sod wall, five feet in height, with broom planted on top, and to be cattle proof. He was to pay half the cost, at the rate of 15s. per chain. A shilling per chain extra was allowed, as the fence was to be a superior one to his (plaintiff's) other fence, which cost 14s. per chain. He had paid £9 to defendant, at the latter's request, before the completion of the fence. The fence proved entirely inadequate to keep out cattle, and consequently he or his boy had to be always on the look out to prevent trespass, in spite of which cattle frequently came through fie fence. Ihe fence was only three or four suds -high, and there were gaps in it, aud only a very small quautity of broom had been planted. In cross-examination, plaintiff stated he measured the fence before he paid the £9, but only to ascertain its length. Henry Clayton Raid he was present when the £9 was paid by Michael to Hogg, and heard the parties stipulate that there was to be a shilling per chain extra paid for the dividing fence, on account of its being of a superior character to Michael's other fence. Hogg then stated the fence was not completed He corroborated plaintiff's statemeuts regarding the inefficiency of the fence, and the non-planting of broom. Langley Pope, a lad in the employ of Michael, testified to defendant saying the fence in question would be superior to Michael's other fences, and that cattle repeatedly came through it. James Keppel, farmer, said the dividing fence was substantial as far as mere building was concerned, but was only from three to four feet in height. It had a light rail on top, which might deter cattle from getting over, but would not resist any force. He did not know the value of the rail, but the worth of the sod fence was 11s. 6d. per chain. There was about three or four chains of broom, and twelve to fourteen chains of whin planted. The dividing fence was not so good as Michael's other fence, but would be a better one in time. In cross-examina-tion, tbe witness said he saw a gap where cattle had got through. Thomas Vye, farmer, Tuapeka West, said the fence was a good one, but was not of full height, and estimated its value at 15s. per chain, irrespective of the rail, the value of which he did not know. In the course of time he thought it would be a good fence. The other fence alluded to was a superior one. Defendant said that last June he entered into an agreement with Michael to make a fence four sods high, and in some places five sods. There was to be a top rail, and the fence was to be planted with broom or j whin. He planted some broom, and j then Michael said he preferred furze. He then sowed furze seed. Some months elapsed before the top rail was put on ; previous to that he asked Michael for the money, as be was rathe? short, but he refused to pay until the top rail w.as put on. After the top ra& was placed, Michael came, down, measured the fence, expressed himself thoroughly satisfied, and paid the £9. The extra shilling per chain was for putting on the top rail. In cross-examination, defendant said he never agreed to make the fence a better one than Michael's other fence. The fence was not buiit wholly of sods in consequence of the agreement. The fence was built entirely on Michael's ground, for the purpose ofraaking it a good one. The fence was to be cattle proof. Judgment was given for plaintiff for ; £2, and costs of coart 275. Draper v. Eaton. — Claim for £# Bs. 9d., meat supplied. Defendant admitted bis liability, and expressed his willingness to pay the amount in • weekly instalments of 10s. each. Plaintiff agreed to this course, and judgment was given accordingly, with costs 6s. Sproule v. De Baizin.—' Claim of £12 ss. 6d., board and education of a b.oy. Plajntis $o.u,dncted T h#l Q'WK

caso, and Mr. Mouat' appeared £:: defendant, wbo resides in Dunedin. Plaiutiff stated that on or about; iTis 25th' February defendant's son a>rfrei ' at the Tuapeka Academy, acco'fApknio"! by Father Larkin, who paid £3 h'-'. account, be said, of Mrs. De Baizin. He (Mr. Sproule) forwarded his. account for the balance ,to defendant through Mr. Murphy, and in due course received the amount, £9 ss. In June he forwarded the account for another quarter in a similar manner, and received the amount. Ha w.is under the impression that Mn. D$ Baizin paid the money in Au-jmt. He forwarded his account for another quarter (copy produced). The bo/ left in the beginning of October. This was plaintiff's case. For the defence, Mr. Mouat called The Rev. Father Larkin, who deposed that owing to defendant's misconduct it was impossible for the boys to remain under his charge. The b> f De Baizin was taken away from the school on his (vvitnpss 1 ) recommendation. He dismissed Sproule from the j charge of the Roman Catholic School for several reasons. Tie plaintiff wvs | almost continually under t!ie influen ;j of liquor, and often intoxicated. Tha culminating point was reached w'vn Sproule had an altercation with His wife, in the course of which unbecoming words were used by both pirlies. He had three or four timps forgiv v Sproule for his misconduct Tie altercation was in August. The b»y was removed immediately after he recommended his being taken away, Mrs. Murphy made the contract for educating the boy, and paid the accounts. He received from her £5 to pay for five weeks' board and education. Mr. Monat said the plaintiff must be non-suited, as the defendant was not | the contracting party. Judgment was eiven for £5 1 5s. 6d., with costs 20s, The Resident Majis trate remarked that defendant w.n i only entitled to pay f.>r t!ie time tVboy received the benefit of plain HtFn services, as it was through bis (plaintiffs) misconduct the boy had been removed.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Eiq., R.M.) Tuesday, December 24. John Kelly, on remand from tliet l ie previoue clay on a charge of hem* drunk and disorderly, was fined 10*. John Dawson, for furious riding was fined sa. "William Lyons, n, lad, was ohnr-ied with stealing a spad<?, a at:--'^ s . •'■:.! „- tin diah, value 125., t ! ;e property of James Robinson, from the Lawrence police paddock. Mr. M'Coy, who Appeared for accused, admitted tho taking of the articles ; but denied any felonious intent. Inspector Thompson, who conducted, the prosecution, called Constable Hiscocka, who deposed that on the 23rd ult., having receive 1 information that some miner's tools had been stolen from the police p«';dock, proceeded to "Wether«to»».<, where he saw accused working wiHi his father in a field. Asked him if he had been batMng in toe poft«e paddock on Sunday. Accused at fir»t denied, but afterwards admitted tYit he had been bathing in the p»]i..-:; paddock, and had there Sr-f.r boovj. tools. Accused then w<*m l )a.nin\ witness to the polii-e nadJ«>ek, ;mJr pointed out the placu w ! ieiv On* t>o!*;> had been. Witness t'>en tolJ iiim ho was a policeman, and that he su<p.-'ctcit him (accused) of stealing t ! iem, ami took him in charge. Accused then t.»r>k witness to where the tools were, w'lic 1 * was about a mile from thskdam. They were concealed in a gully and covered over with grass. Accused denied all knowledge of the tools til! witness told him he was a policeman. Cross-examined by M<\ M Coy. — Witness was not in uniform whfii ho went to him. Two mm are building a dam in the police paddock. This was the case, Mr. M'Coy said his defence was that the tools were left in an unfrequented place, that it was a fair supposition that they were abandoned, and that they were not takeu with dis. honest intention. He also requested His Worship to dismiss the charge,, under the 82nd clause of the Justice of the Peace Act. His Worship said he had not theslightest doubt that the boy had com. mitted a felony. It was a pity to see so young a lad in &ueh a painful, position^ The huv wisely allowed a magistrate to dismiss the criminal, under certain circumstances, where tho. ' value of the property was under 205., and he would mercifully give the '' accused the benefit of this, the more especially remembering that to-raorrove, Christmas Day, was the annii'ersarv of tbe birth of the Great Teacher of ' Mercy. His Worship then called for * the boy's father, who was in Courfc, ." and addressing hk» said : As tho father " of this child, you are responsible to God for hia soul, and to man for the propriety of his conduct. Let this matter be a warning to both him and to you ; and if he is ever again placed in such a position, upon, you be fche responsibility. T.«a/:h him that he is not the proprietor of anything he may happon to pick up, even if it is found— not stolen. It is the duty of persons finding lost property to endeavor to find the owner. Take him away an/$ give him a good thrashing— it will bai no more than he deserves. $b.e Co.ujt then adjourned,