RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 360, 30 May 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Beforo E. H. Carew, Esq., RM, and H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M.) Friday. 29th Mat. I Holmes v. Lyon». — An information charging defendant with having used insnlting language, calculated to provoke a' breach of the peace. Mr. M'Coy for the defendant. Lawrence Carter Holmes, town clerk, deposed — t remember the Bth May. On that day I waa standing at the bottom of Peel- ; street talking to Mr. Hill and others, when Lyons came xnp and made a remark about a dog which he said I induced to follow me. I said that I did not entice the dog to follow me. He said, " You are~a liar." Toftl him that I would summons. him, and that I did not want any more of hia impertinence. He had; some stones in his hand. Cross-examined— l, used. some strong language too. I did not induce. the dog to follow me. This is not the first time- 1 have summoned people for using insulting language to me. It is the second time.

James Hill,- watchmaker, Lawrence*, corroborated the previous evidence, and said iq cross-examination that he tfcg affair a jjrumpery one. " - N Mr. M'Coy said th&t the langnagevosed w»| not polite certainly, hut it was not sufficiently gray© to found a chauge of sort ; on. \i appeared that the language of Holme£ was of a provoking | kin d\ ann that "Lyons was irrf. tated^by it ;\and further, that thef language of Holmes waV-^iot muebrjjejjfcer. Such lan- ' guageApasses unnoticed amongst persons of one claes in life, though it might be very offensive to 'those in another. Holmes had befofe sumnioned a person under similar circum. stances. Mr... .Rpbuisoji said that would, not affect this case. Mr. M'Coy thought that if he could show that Holmes' demeanor was insulting and that he was of a litigipuß jtemper, it should have some weight. He submitted that thai language, though unpolite, was nothing worae. Mr. Robinson said the Bench were of opinion that the case waft, to use the expressi"n of a witness, a trumpery one ; yet, as an offence had been committed, a light fine would be inflicted. Fined 55., costs of Court Bs., one witness 10s. Mr. Robinson then left? the Bench. Police v. Tuh Low. — Yuk Low w« placed in the dock, charged with, larceny on the information of Sergeant Farrell. Mr. Copland appeared for the accused j Charles Ah Ying interpreted. The information charged tne accused with stealing a £5 note, a cheque for £7 155., i and two ooats, from Alexander M'Swan. groom to Chaplin and Co., at Round Hill. Mr. Thompson conducted the case for the police. James M'lntosh, coach driver to Chaplin and Co., proved that he paid the cheqne, whioh was produced, to M'Swan. M'Swan proved that he lost all the property alleged to be stolen while tenv porarily absent on the 27th April last. The property was taken from ihe stables, to which access was easy. Arthur Stewart — a most intelligent boy of 14 years of age — deposed to having seen the Chinaman , whom he knew, about the the stables during the time the things were lost, and going away afterwards by the creek with a bundle-, which he had not previously- had. He also pointed out the man to Sergeant Farrell at Waipori. Joseph Cox "proved that the prisoner changed the cheque at his store, and that he said he came frptn Round Hill. Sergeant Farrell deposed to finding the things in the tent of the prisoner at Wai« pori, and arresting him. Mr. Copland reserved the defence. The prisoner was committed for trial at the next sittings' of the Supreme Court at Lawrence. His Worship intimated that bail would be taken if offered. Armstrong v. Bamford. — No appearance of defendant. Claim of £25 14s, 6d. The acceptance by. the. defendant was proved — the presentment and nonpayment. Judgment for the amount claimed, and costs of Court, 265. McCarthy v. Kitchen. — Adjourned iot four weeks.

Boherts v. Lancaster. — Adjourned till Tuesday, 2nd June.

s