R.M. COURT CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1392, 4 June 1881, Page 3

R.M. COURT CAMBRIDGE.

Friday, Juno B.—[.Before 11. W. Northcroft, Esq., Jt.M., and Thos. Waddington. Esq., J.P.]

Criminal Cases. Ralph Stuabt v. McFarlane. This case arose out of defendant having used abusive and threatening language towards thn pluiutiff, Mr Stuart, who is a schoolmaster, residing at Cambridge, while in the execution of his duties as teacher, at the Cambridge East School, on Friday, 20th May. , t , Defendant pleaded guilty.

Mr Dyer appeared for the defendant, and Mr Beaie for the prosecutor. Mr Bealo in opening the charge, asked the Bench to inflict as heavy a penalty as was compatable with justice, so that a warning might ,be given to others who felt disposed Ik> follow the example shown by the defendant. Were snch conduct permitted to go unheeded and unpunished it would produce a most undesirable effect. It was, consequently, desirable to the intents of the eommuuity at large that a heavy penalty should bo inflicted Ralph Stuart was called, and stated that on Friday the 20th May, the defendant, James McFarlane, came to the school. He was teaching in the inner room, when a messenger informed him that a person wished to see him in the lobby. Whcu he went to the lobby the defendant was standing there. Deferifend.ml was very excited, and asked why his son had been refused admis&iou. He (plaintiff) then replied that as the boy's own father had sworn in court on a previous occasion tiiat the lad was over 17 years of age, and consequently beyoud the Compulsory Clauses of the Education Act, he in accord moe with instructions given him by the chairman of tho local School Committee had sent the boy home. Defendant then resolved to abusive lan^ua^e threatening him with personal chastisement .saying "You and I must fight. " He was positive that those works were used and that defendant intended carrying them into execution he I having raised his fist in compliance with i the threat. He then retreated into the schoolroom, and endeavoured to close the door but was pievented doing so by McFarlane interposing his peison. The conduct occasioned muoh disorder .imonget the pupils who diopped their work to take cognisance of the aff.iir. Cross-exam in ad by Mr Dyer : Tho conduct of the defendant was provocative of unusual disorder m the school. The language used Was heaid by the majoiity of the pupils. Would swear that defendant stated on oath when e\p mined relatne to his son's age, that he Mas 17Tliu woids used weie " You and us must fight" and not " You and I foi it." Had received instructions fiom the chairman of the boaid not to le-admit the boy unless further instmctions were given him concerning the same. Maitha Alford, female teacher, was then called and gave corroberative evidence. She was certain that defendant was under the influence of drink on the occasion lef erred to, and th.it the language used was abusive and threatening. Defendant smelt very .strong of intoxicants. Mary Morris, a female pupil aged 13 yeais was then called and examined as to the nature of an oath, and having satisfied the bench on this point corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses. Other witnesses wore about to be called for the prosecution, when His Woiship mled that it was unnecessary to bring any moie evidence, especially as the witnesses were mere children. •lames McFarlane, the defendant, was then called, and entered upon a graphic description of the whole narrative. He merely went to the school to enquire into the eiicumstances of his son's dismissal, and to have definite reasons from the master on the point, his son's version being unreliable. He merely asked the master why his son was discharged, and and on being answered that according to his own statement on oath when in Couit on the previous Court day, that his boy w.iS over seventeen, and consequently over age, haul to the plaintiff "it will be you and I tor it. " Would swear this to be the expression, and not " must fight" He did not intend to strike the defendant nor did he physically oppose the shutting of the door. Would swear he never swore that Ins boy was over seventeen years. His Worship, in giving judgment, admonished the defendant against lesorting to such unwarrantable means to redress his griewinces. There was a school committee, any member of which would consider his case, as well as several other poisons to whom he could apply, and if he had occasion to go to the schoolmastei he should not rcsoit to intimidation. A penalty of 20s was inflicted.

Civil Cases. Pilling v. R. H. D. Feigusson, claim £8 0s for wages due. This case was heard last day, and judgment was deferred until this Court day. His Worship, alter commenting at some length upon the evidence adduced at the he.uihg of this case, lemaikcd that if the cattle were not mustered, and plaintiff had 2iot discharged the duties which he was bound to discharge in consideration of the tcims ot his agreement with defendant, the fault was not Jus. The plaintiff had gone to the estate on seveial occasions desirous of discharging his duties, but was unable to do so tlnough defendant's neglect in not supplying the necessary assistance which was lequisite to make a muster. The overseer (Mr Bendall), who was a man of considerable experience m hi 3 own line of business, had gi\en it as Ins opinion that plaintiff should have had instructions from his employer as to the day of mustering, and that the employer should cci tainly name the day. In this fase defendant had appointed no particular day, nor did he lea\e anyone in charge when he was away ; and though his overseer -\\ as there lie had, according to the evidence, no instructions i dative to the matter w liatever, and was not in a position to offci any assistance to Pilling to muster the cattle. It was, therefore, through no fault of plaintiff's that the muster was not made dining the notire, and he was therefore entitled to his full wages and costs, M 10s,

John Edgar v. 0. 0. Montrose. This case was again brought forward for healing, but the necessary evidence ■\v Inch defendant is desirous of obtaining not having been forthcoming, the case was further adjourned until next Court day. Mr Beale, for the plaintiff, speaking with regard to the adjournment, remarked that the costs of the previous adjournments had not as yet been paid into Couit, and would request the Court to make some ruling with regard to this matter before any further adjournment was gi anted As to the evidence, which it was said defendant had to receive fiom Chnstchurch and Wellington, lie would diaw their Worships attention to the delay which had been occasioned in this matter, and asked that something decisive should be done with regard to preventing any further unnecessary delay. The case had now been adjourned from Court day to Court day for the past two months, so that the evidence, which was neces&aiy ior the defence, might be forthcoming, but up to the present comparatively nothing whatever had been heard of it. If the Court were to go on granting adjournments in this manner, he wondered where and when the thing would f ome to a termination.' He would also draw their attention to the fact that nothing whatever, h,ad been done with regard to the taking of the evidence of defendant's witnesses in Auckland, under the Resident Magistrate's Act. His Worship, in reply to Atr Bealei said that the evidence of the two witnesses in Auckland was not to be taken , under • the Resident Magis* • trate's Act, but that they -would be summoned to appear before the Oourt at Cambridge, and give their evidence whenever the other evidence arrived from the South so that the; whole ease [couklrbe gone into in one day>instead of hearing it piece-meal, As to the costs of the

different adjournments if was agreed when the case was first h,eard that defendant should #ay then and it "was on. thede grounds the adjournment was agreed to. It had been; $aid tHafr ifc was f a matter of great injustice to the plaintiff that the case should &tand adjourned from time to tune but this he coald not see. When the \)ase was first brought forward 'for ■hearing the evidence Of plaintiff and soni'e of his witnesses was taken as it was 'said both were under engagement to leave the place.' They were therefore at liberty to go where they liked, 'to London or any other quarter of the globe there was no more necessity for their pressnce in court but the plaintiff he had noticed had been in Court every day since the adjournment had been first granted. He consequently failed to see where any hardship had been inflicted when it was understood that the plaintiff was at liberty to go elsewhere and take employment. If the plaintiff said he was under engagement to leave the place he had deceived his solicitor and his solicitdr in return had misguided the coa.t. It wart through no fault of the Court that the evidence had been delayed and until such evidence was returned the Court would not go on with the case. Mrßealo: Theie is surely some limit to the time required m getting evidence. His Worship replied that it was agreed between both parties interested in the case, that the case should stand adjourned until the necessary evidence arrived. The defendant, Mr Montrobe, here proferred a series of shorthand notes which he took when the case was first brought forward to assi&t the memory of the Court on the matter of granting the adjournment. His Worship declined the use of the manuscript. Mr Montroae : I'll put them in as evidence when the case comes on for hearing. The case was then adjourned.