R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 869, 9 September 1881, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON, FRIDAY, [Before H, S. Wardell, Esij., R.M.I Several small debt casei were taken, in which judgment was confessed. Judgment was siven for plaintiffs in the case Parkes and Peterson vC. Bentley.—Debt £lßs, the defendant not appearing. Feist v Ocknnden,—Judgment summons, Ordered to pay in 14 days, Gaselberg and Co. ( vW. Mills,—Debt IT 4a Qdi Mr Runny for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and oo.'ts,

Ingram v J. H. La Roche.-Allowing chimney to catch fire. Defendant said tlmt the fire was caused through the negligence of Ihe oweeper. Fined 10sand 7s costs, Defendant asked tho Court if he could recover from Mr Cox who had swept tho chimney, l'lio Court advised him to consult a solicitor,

Same v E, Brains.—Allowing a horse to bn at large, The defendant pleaded guilty, but said other horses were allowed to run ut large. The Inspector said the animal was one that was worthless. Fined Is and 7s costs,

Same v E, 0. Jones.—Unlawfully making a fire at tho rear of his premises, tn a place where there was no properly constructed fireplace or stove, The information beinif defective was withdrawn. Constable Carroll v Souper.—Drunk and incapable. Mr Skipper for the defence, staled that the defendant had been up two nights running nursing a sick wife and had been overcome hy a very little liquor, Pined 5s and costs, 1 J. McDermott vH, Westbrook.—Larcony, The defendant was a boy of about 12 years of ago. Mr Skipper saidthe charge of larceny would be withdrawn, Mr Bunny for the defendant said there was not a shadow of evidence in proof of tho case, and asked the Court to saddle the prosecutor with all costs in the matter, and reprimand the prosecutor for bringing an unfounded charge. Mr Skipper admitted that he had no evidence, and the case was dismissed, the prosecutor paying costs of defendant 31s. J. McDermott v J. D. and R. D. Thompgon.—Malioinus injury to property. The defendants were boys about 8 and 9 years of age. Mr Skipper for prosecutor, Mr Bunny for defendants, The charge was for breaking a pane of glass.

J. McDerinntt deposed that he lived at the Taueru. On the 29th ultimo he was sitting in his house reading, when he heard stones thrown at the house a little before nine. He went out and watched and presently four or five boys came with stones in their hands and he came out and stuck them up with his dogs. He Rot hold of two boys who said tho other hoys were the culprits. One of the boys he cau»ht y.is in Court. He did not know that any dan|as>B \yas dque. At lirat he thought there was, hut since laying the information he found that' he was mistaken, He did not wish the boys punished, but would like the larrikfnism stopped. In answer to Mr Bunny—The 'black-' smith broko a pane of glass putting it in. There was only one broken pane in tho window. Had complained to Mr Thompson of the conduct of his boys Shut not since last June, He admitted having been turned out of Mr Thompson's house when drunk on Good Friday last. : In answer to Mr Skipper, witness said his sign noathad been carried away, (this wa» with reference to'the former charge against Westbrook.) ,■

The Qourt said an error had been made in laying fo serious an information on' so small a matter, The information ;must be dismissed, a3 it was unsupported by evidence. It thought Mr McDerroott was wrong in not at once complaining to the parent of the defendants, who would,

it believed, have taken all neceaaary steps to stop the annoyance, Prosecutor wag ™ d _ to pay costs of defendants, 41s. Ihe Court warned the prosecutor against making rash charges, In tho two cnqoa just decided ha would have to pay costs to the extent of £5 3s, besides his own lawyer, which would perhaps bo a caution to him.

Rhodes Donald v W. Morrison,-Mali-oious injury to propery. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant, . The charge was for breaking down / fenoinpt, the property of the prosecutor J Rhodes Donald deposed that he wai'a settler, residing at Manaia, The fence referred to had been destroyed on a previous occasion. The letter produced he,had received from the defendant. Th» fence had been up about 15 years, it encroachod on an old road line, There was /r a passage left of about half a ckainftr traffic. . He found the fence destroyed about the 29th of August. The letter produced. ,was from the defendant,, and stated that unless the fence were removed ihe. defendant would remove it at the expense of the witntm. About 10 panels of the fence wore cut down with an axe. The fence did not obstruct the traffic in any way. He had permission from the Highway Board for the fence to remain oh the road line. He had taxed the defendant with chopping down the fence,. and the latter did not deny the act. In answer to Mr Skipper-He had had notice from the Board to remote the fence, but subsequently had received permission to retain in order to allow him to get his crops in. He did not promise to remove it after his crops were in. Mr Frazi, called, proved a plan of the fence produced, which showed the encroachmont. The fence was removed at both ends in order to allow traffic to pass in and out. Defendant told him that he took the fence down to got a better road for the night cart to pass along. Rhodes Donald, recalled, said ho had had notice to remove stones off the road from tho Highway Board. The stones were still there. R. Wilsone, Clerk to the Board, proved that tho Board had passed a resolution granting Mr Donald leire to allow the fence to remain till his crops were off, Mr Skipper—There was a petition sent in asking that the fence and atones be removed; also letters from Mr Morrison. No notice was taken of the petition. The general public as well as Mr Morrison claimed the right to the road, Many of the signers of the petition were nut ratepayers in the Highway District. Mr "Wilsone, recalled, stated that on the 29th of November, 1879, a resolution had been passed to give notice to Mr Donald to remove the fencp, but this had not been done. Subsequently a discussion was held by the Board on the matter, and they were in faror of allowing the fence to stand, but no resolution was passed to that elect. V'Wr flipper thin] addrespd the Qourt for the defence. He argued that the road being a publio one, Mr Morrison or any one of the public had a right to remove any obstruction upon it. The road belonged to the Highway Board, and they, and not Mr Donald, were the proper parsons to bring the prosent action. If Mr Donald had erected a fence outside hii property ho must take the consequences. Mr Donald had had notice to remove tl]<| fence, but had not (long so. Ho oharacter* ised tho oaso as having beon ooncooted to bring tho defendant before the Court; The plaintiff could have entered a civil instead of a criminal one, which was vafy serious, as a second conviction would mean imprisonment. He contended his client had had no malicious intent, but was merely exorcising his right as one of the publio. There was no other course open to him. The defendant was, then sworn, and stated that he had cut the fence down at each end on two occasions, as it so blocked road that the Iioroqgl) cart ( whjch was" seven feet wide, could not get through, nor could he get a threshing machine to his crops. He had given Mr Bunny some time ago 0s 8d for advice, and had been told that Mr Donald had no right to have the fence on the road. He (witness) thought it very hard that this road should be shut up to the publio. He had no malicious intention in tlm matter. His Worship in giving judgment stated that from the fact that the defendant had received notice not to interfere with the fence, lie could not have been under the impression that lit was acting rightly. And th» Ooijri guilty of malicious injury,' He would bo fined a minimum penalty, viz,, 20s and costs. Defendant offered to put up the fence again instead to paying plaintiff to do so, birt tho latter stated he would rather avoid poisiblo litigation, and have the money to pay some one for the work, Tho total amount of the judgment wai 14 Bi.

Mr Morrison asked what redress the inhabitants had for the low of the road, and whether Mr Donald would not have to pay for using. so much of the public land? Ifis Worihip said they would have redress at % lte;t election of He thought pressure should have been placed upon the Board,

Mr,Morrison said he would put tho fenoe up for £1 and be glad of the job, but Mr Donald agreed to refund any money left after the fenco was paid f«r,

THE LATE SHEEI- CASE, flis Worship gjjyp |]j, dgciqioi) it) the) oase Sutton v Hitohings, which had been reserved to Bee if ho could (as the plaintiff wialied) record a conviction without inflicting a fine. He now stated ho could not, and would impose tho minimum penalty, viz., £5, and the fine could be remitted. Mr Bunny stated that was what he had intended to ask His W ors hip to do.