R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1030, 23 March 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

V W- ■ ' $0 / LBofora'H,..S.tWaTdCEp,,:'U,M.l S. Haigli v Neil Svenßeu7—Debt£l 14s I'ljomas ifolan-v James McColl. Jiidgmerit'Summ6ih 1 £l6*3af Mr Bunny for

! MASTERTON, TO-DAY. Sutton v D. MoLachlan.—Breaoh of the Rabbit Act, TIIO defendant pleaded not guilty. W. A. P. Sutton deposed that he had caused a notice to be served on defendant. Jameß Harvey said he vißited the pro--1 perty of the defendant on the 6th and 16th of January, and the rabbits were v ery numerous. He served defendant with a notice on the 25th of January. On February Ist he again visited the property and found 110 diminution in the number of rabbitß," The property oonBisted of over 800 acres of land. He wsb not satisfied with tho- 1 steps defendant took to reduce the number of rabbits, The deforidant said that since the seven days Wd,expired ho had succeeded better in re] )gf number. All ho did ■iv? ! n tno sei ". Ms was to have young \Vcich with a large pack of dogs for two or tlireo days. He was busy at the tirnoj harvesting. The proseoutor Baid the defeudantj, required a man to be constantly 011 bis property rabbiting. Young Weloli had t quite enough to do to look after his own ' proporty, :The Court said that it waß not satisfied with tho stops the defendant had taken, and would fine him 20s and 12s costs. The Court said that defendants must not presume too muolt on tho small . penalties it inflicted for first offences. If continued neglect wefe shown much - heavier penalties would be enforced.

CiPIAW Jones IN- TESOSLB;, j n > a .1 .c .f v- >./ ?. ut . .1 Edward Jones was charged on the information of. Mr Stevetiaon,■ ( thj. ( .Btatioij-. master at Masterton, with beiti? intoxicated ,-at : the, station, uaintj language, and assaulting the xoniplainMr Beard appeared for the complainant. J. F. W. Steveiiaor-deDOßedqthat on the evening of the 14th of March about 8,30 p.m., jho. defendant was .staggering up and-dowri-the' platfotm.J drunk that witnoss had to get a man to hold him when the train came in.

■ Defendant; Who pulled my nose in the office 1 Witness :,I don't know, Defendant: What did I say to you 1 Witness: You wore too drunk to know what you 1 were talking about. You ; showed me a letter.: : .i,m ; Defendant: Whore is this letter ? .You aro generally particular in keeping:,all that I show to you. Q.. 11, Jtyrk, telegraphist,'deposed that ho was at the station oy tho evening of tho 14th. Tljo wa? (}t'iji)lj and incapable of taking care pf himself. I|ii speech was v.ory thick. \yitnessaaw kirn afterwards.on the platform and l)e looked very 'njuclj lfeo ip n)iw on a ! frigate -in. a heavy spa, ■ I 'Hi v : Defendant! Pp yojjjripembpr my pawing any joke with you bn't.bia evasion ? Wifcnugi'j No, L' :

Defendant; Hare you generally seen me in the state I was that night-merry and laughing ?

Witness: I have often seen you merry, but never so drunk before. Your life was certainly in danger if you were on tho platform when the train came in.

Defendant admitted havmn had a glass of beprj but was not -too:drunk mind his op J)UB}nes|j, '■■''■t s -w.:. . The Qriurt sajq btf yty top dpunk to.-g«j on tho station pretpisoa, ind fjnud biro |l and costs, or 48 hours imprisonment. It also warned the defendant'tlmt' by b'ojng drunk on the station grounds he was liable to a penalty of i>lo. Tho second oharga of insulting language was thou proceeded with.

Mr Skipper said ho' was instructed on the moment to appear for [the defqndaut, and appealed to-thos Railway Department to ask them to withdraw the othar charges in consideration of the first conviction., ~

Tj}o. Court; In inuking .that appeal are:you yplijig to pay ffco post ? Sir Skipper: fanl ii|j|'actjnpt against th'e wish of my client, Mr BoarcJ said tljit )f tlje defendant pleaded guilty lip woi||ij be satjsf}ed with a nominal -penalty .iij ~?ijcl) of tljp two other cbargos/ • v,; ' Tho caso was thou atljotinod to enabjo Mr Skipper to counsel with the defendant. It was arranged that a, plea ( of .guilty afinoofohoßhiiliug ill'oitohof Ibe'subsequent cases and ordered costs against the defendant. OBSTRUCTING THE FOLIOS. Emifhiind .George. Alliaon were oharged |jy Vtih'a %ach of the peacp, on tl)e IGfli of Mijrcli. Mr Beard appeared for tlio defendant, W. Smith.

Whefl'pballflngfld; • George Mid he did not know whether hp was guilty or not, as. he was drunk at tho tirflo,

F. W. Green deposed that he romerabeiod the 16th inst. He.saw Smith and Allison on that day, He' hid just como into - • :thfl . .streetand. saw. the , two men having a scuffle,' there' were other parties standing there including. i two or threo women. Witness saw them trying to strike each othor. They wero not sober. The pjapp wjiei'o they were scuffling \Vag wjthio yipy of fhs stpfc. (In auswor to Mr Beard), the 'place was private property pd the struggio jyas a one. 1 ; m ,'i ,\ \ M, l(, Martin deposed, paw tho scuffling iu a paddoot; ;• TJjoy oonld not fight very well, there was a numbor of, people aboat. They were •'not: stripped (In answer to Mr Beard) Smith was so drunk that ho could not kuock Allison over.

The Sergeant said be brought tbe matter before the Court with a view to have them bound over to keep the peace. Mr Beard submitted that the defendant had not brofjflht thejimjts of tho Aot. The place private one. There waj no law to prevent them fighting within view of a public place, , The Court held that a breach of the peace had bean committed, . Mr Beard quoted certain authorities, and the bench agreed' to consider them before girincr its deoision, and ad,joarned the oase till 5 p.m. 7

OBSTRUCTING THE lOUOE, William Smith was charged with obstructing the Police in the execution of their duty and pleaded not guiity. Sergt. McArdie deposed that yesterday afternoon he received notices for services, and proceeded to the Prince of Wales' HpJeJ (,o serve one on a youth named Foiser. _ H&aolfed foiapjr to pome into a room with l)im. The accused Smith yas standing outside, and followed witness into the room, and opened the door which witness had olosod, and cautioned Foiser not to answer any question which the Sergeant might pat to hira, The witness, asked him what right he bad to interfere, when the accused swore at him.

The Court: Do you call this obstruction t Offensive words are not an obstruction. ■ The information'was dismissed the; Sergeant being informed that he could lay ■ another one under a different ordinance,

PETTV TUEFI. . , , A small'.'boy was then brought, up, charged wi(h stealing six shillings from a: house. Sj 'V; . The boy said in answer Couvi; that he got in at ail open window- and took the money. The prosecutor, Mrs Kehall, asked foe the. boy. to bo cautioned and discharged. Tho Court ordered the boy Jo remain in the custody of the constable till the oreo> ould consult with his father. Tho small prisoiior then left 1 tho"Court; : RESTRAINT ORDER. Sergeant MoArdle v Frederick Chapman.—Defendant waa charged under the Licensing Act with oxcessive drinking. The Serjeant said that he had been asked to withdraw the charge, but believing that it would be for the benefit of defendant to go on with it, he declined to do'ao,

The Court held that the power given under the Aot was one which would be benefioi'al to many cases. There should be no objection to some persons plaoing themaelves under the protection of the Aot, and ho thought the defendant was such a person and ought to he thankful to he restrained. ;He would rather make the order with tho consent of the defendant. The defendant: lam quite willing to have the order made.

The Court: I will make the order, and am glad that you itro wiilmu to sub.uit tu it. ME. Jones was then called upon to show || jfegn order should not be made to fofe P Uny publican to supply him with liqls| If ip (to his wife) Are you going against my having a drink old woman? ' Mrs Jones said her : husband was a good man when he was sober, but upset the house when he was drunk. -

The Sergeant said that for the last six months the defendant tyid been drunk on an (average three days, a week, ans3iad been very troublesome. Witnea>™«ria peatedly spoken to him. His^||p| ! lowed liitn about-- the town, cryiifg||ay. after day. Witness had frequently got people fo tjijie him lie was insensibly drunk. ; ,rf \ ; In answer to defendant; Ifad been in the habit of seeing him attend to his work at'the railway station. Defendant: How many weeks is it since I ever touched anything I " ; Mrs Junes said he Imd kept himself soljer for six \yoeks, at)d then broke out

(Defendant; If 1 can bring twelve respectable mon to sivear that th?y have not Been me drinking will you tako that 'I The Court: No. I will make the order, arid hope it will be for your benefit. ASSAULT,' ' IThomas Ryan was chargod with an assault on Pripr Gjlbert, My Bunny for the defendant plpadea not guilty, . , Prior Gilbert deposed that he was a laborer residing at Kuripuni Oil the 17ih inst he was at the Empire Hotel in the evening. While standing in the passage ho heard something go in the bar and ran out to seo who it was who had made the sinasli. Before ho • reached the man he met with something, a stone struplf l)im on the head; he could not see who Ihrey th" stone, (In answer to Mr Bunny.) ijuvpr had any quarrel with defendant, did not'hjmself tajte .'steps agaiijat tl)e defendant, but if the eQrgeaijt had not taken fhein he should have do|)e bo,

John ifanjftplow, (/root)) at the Empire Hotel wai}'standing orj the noddle of the road when the occurrense took plaee—botwoun 0 and 10 p.uv He beard glass fall, siw a man run uut of the but' with Gilbert after liiin, He saw a stone thrown by the man who came out of the bar which struck Gilbert, Witness saw Gilbert stagger. Witness ran after the man but the lattor outstripped him. Jt was too dark to identify him. Witness never not 100 close to him; did not want to as ha might have got a bat on the head hinjself. '(1|) myof to I{<! Ijuijny,) Before throwjiig tho stf)i)o thp nip phallenged Gilbert, asking what ho wanted with him.

Tha sergeant said thai a necessary witnoss who had been subpoaned, the barmaid of the hotel, had gone to 'Wellington. It would be very little use asking for a remand us ho could not depend upon finding the witness. The Court dismissed the charge as there was no ovidence to identify the accused with the man in the bar. ZAOI}AI!JAH I'ATTEHSOJf. . Zaclmriah wrp c'|)arge<j by Sergeant UlcArdlo under tho Vagrancy Act, but did liot appear wljen called. It Is Buppoaed tliiit heljas soqght fresh fields aijd pastqros my.

A FALLJM) BAROJffITHI), ' ' R. V. Smith v Broadbont,—Claim for a barometer entrusted to bo repaired. Mr Bunny for plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that ho had lost or had stolen from his shop a portion of the barometer and was for this reason unable to return it.

It was'arranged that defendant should settle tljo matter out of Court by paying tho plai'ntiS the'absqluto gosji of tj|o instrument, failing'which judgment would bo given by' tho pourt in the ordinary way. '

Aldfcnzio v Hounslow. Judgment Bummons for costs, 13, in t))o cape Houusloiv v McKonzie. Ordered that defendant pay by 23rd May. Brigi>a v Hapeta W. To Hopua.—Debt £4. judgment for amount and £1 18s COStB.