TE AWAMUTU RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1880. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.) Criminal Side.

Waikato Times, Volume XV, Issue 1283, 18 September 1880, Page 2

TE AWAMUTU RESIDENT M AGISTRATE'S COURT . THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1880. (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.) Criminal Side.

Samuel Staples was charged with being drunk, and pleaded guilty. —Constable, Gillies deposed that defendant was quite | quiet, at the time, and was placed in the 1 look-up for his own protection. —Firat I oflience.—Cautioned and ordered to pay j 7s and costs.

A JUSTICE OF.TIJffi PEACE, FI^EB FOX EIDIXG ON THE FOOTPATH. Gordon C. Y. Tisdall, J.V., of Alexandra, was charged, on the information of Constable Gillies, with ridra'g on the footpath contrary to the provisions of. the Public Works Act, Section 99.—The de- < fendant pleaded' not guilty.-^Constable Gillies proved tbat on tho day in question (28th:August la^t)' he saw defendant riding* a horse upon, the foobwa'y leading from the' Railway vStation to Te AAvamutu. The Constable produced the CU^ette notice declaring that it was a

foot-path. He himseH^new ajgm ffjf | defendant cross- oxaft^pid: GmistfijJe (IfP ] lies at homo leuglh a^ to whether thb Constable WAi> authorised to institute the proceeding.*, and also as the oxiuStrhcu/r of the alleuwl offence, in onW to bhow, | if po-aiblc, that the act charged was com- I mtttod (if nt all) in Mangapiko, and not in Ilie Tl-mtriaohia Highway District. Tho Constable's cross-examination, however, rather increased than diminished the-iHlei»«iW"-e£-14%e-ol«wv#»— The defendant hero said to the Constable, '• You seem to have a particifli£ fef* §u me^ Perhaps you can tell libw Ibng^fc le .since Xx^iJit<iJ. I^X^A)K.anjuiu ( ?: > _jriiis, ry-^ mark called rfqi&h a, r.ebukp from the Bench, wlfo' ' saia; 'Mfr Tisdali, you seem to think that because you are a Ji^iiiiSe "<M tfie Peuce, that the constable should i{J»^ ru the. pljence. „1 honour a c6nstaple\ who is not af raia|ofia J.P."— The defendant' having completed his crobsf-eKamiuatrtm', !the I Ma&irftr ite elicited from the constable a leiter.ition of the evidence first 1 WiVe"n by him, namely, that the footpath was such, and that the defendant was' riding a horae 1 thereof oil the 25th August last. — The defendant here attempted to re-commence his crossexamination, but vMd' instantly stopped by the Bench, who reminded him th.it us a J.P. who had' himself sut on tfhe Bench, ho ought to know that a defendant is not cntitlel to re-open a cros^-examination after it H closed. — Tho defendant being then called ujjon to state his defquoe, argued at pome length, and 'relied ujKju the 97th claubp q£ the ( Act, and called Henry BridgmaW, tyh'o proved that the roadwas 1 very full of 'holes, and in a dangerous condition. — Ini giving judgment, the R.M. said that the 97th section of the A f cfc,' bn which the defendant h<id in parti relied ,for h^ defence,, had no more to do with the question than, the Rating Act or the Aims Act. The Bench aLso commented on ith,Q f,tct,that/j;hc defendant, instead of pleading guilty and alleging that 'he w.is unaware that it was a footpath, had actually' 'attempted to refute the charge, wiiere.i^, by calling the witness Bridgman, the defendant had virtually admitted tliat lie was riding on tlie footp.ith.-r-Tho Magiotrate also considers that not only wns it, no excuse In allege the bad state of Ijh,G'rofid, livt t that to do so .aggravated, .the, {oifpnqq, as :it showed that the act ufiruKng on the footpath under such ciicutn^tanccs wo aid mate' the footpath [(which U consti/ucted for pedestrians); ip,i us bad a condition as the road itt>elf. The defendant was fined 20s- ; and oost^, '!'£*>, \ Henry Bridgeman of Te Awamutu was .then, charged with, a. lil^c. offence. He pleaded guijty, but assured the B^uch that; , he, , rocle on t\w footpath through ignorance and inadvertence. — Cautioned, and ordered to pay 7s costs. "* ' Tirc r Ej;cen'L' Chahoh of Cruelty to a Hojisa— Mr' (.ireslTairi; on behalf of Mr W.iltcrs, the owner of , thp ■ horee, ajyjUed tliat the,d.effiiidant, snovjld forthwith pay, the reniciinni'jr €10 (ordered by tile Benoh to be paid by ihe 31st July). The defendant hid paid £1"), the amount of the fine imposed, but hc>d;not ])aid the valuu of the hoise as ordered. — Constable Gillies stated that he h'ad'Mpphed recently to ' Baker for the £10.— Th^ Boiich directed the constable to fetch Baker, but as the* latter- was not forthcoming, the constable was instructed to produce Hi iker on (Saturday, to which date the Court would adjourn. , , , „ ,

Civil Side, i • * Thompson v. T^rnwald— Judgment for pi lintiff, 12s, costrf 225. Uorljoy v. Nunn. — Mr (Jroshain for Plaintitt. — This was a judgment .summons whereon at the last Court the defendant h.i'l been ordered to pay 10^ pev week. — Mr [Gresham informed the Bonch that no instalment had been paid. — The Cleric of tl\e Court wa:, directed to issue a warrant to scud defendant to prison for one month upon application of plaintiffs solicitor. Church v. Moses. — Mr (Iresh.un for tho defendant. —In this case the defendant had paid into Court £2 10? lens than the amount charged by plaintiff. — Plaintiff had jipjcipted Siitttej in hiitisfactiou. The Court then ro.se! '<■