MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 16, 18 June 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, June 18. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.] BREACH OP CITY BYE-LAWS. For allowing horses and cattle to wander, the following fines were inflicted: —Wm. Kirkwood, 5s ; Henry Hedge, ss; John Murphy (two horses), ss; E. W. Millet, (a goat), ss. The adjourned summons against Nicholas Smith, for causing au obstruction by tethering a horse in Cranmer square, and one in Chester street, was dismissed, Joseph Hart for causing an obstruction in High street, by allowing a hogshead Jo remain on the footpath was fined 10s. John Williamson was summoned for driving a cart on his wrong side in Cashel street on the 3rd June, by which means he came into collision with a buggy and caused the driver of the latter to be thrown out. Alfred Day stated that he saw the boy driving on that day in the centre of the road, when he collided with a buggy that was coming the opposite way on its proper side. There was a cart in the boy’s way lower in the street, but he could have passed it and got on his right side before meeting the buggy. Fined 10s and expense of witness. Charles Carson for allowing his chimney to take fire was lined 10s. Alfred Smith for being away from his waggon and six horses on the Gth June, was fined 10s,

USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE. George Wadsworth and Mary Wadsworth were summoned for using obscene language in Kilmore street on the Bth June. A witness named Amy Clark stated that when these people were on the drink, their conduct was disgraceful. The defendants appeared in Court in a state of semi-intoxication, and as they continued their interruptions after being warned they were both committed for twenty-four hours for contempt of Court, SMOKING IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE. The adjourned case against Andrew Gucy for smoking in a railway carriage was called on. George Brown stated that he was employed at the Canterbury railways. On the 22nd of last month he travelled with defendant to the Rakaia by the 6.30 'p.m, train. Wm. Longdon was guard of the train. On that occasion the defendant was smoking all the journey at intervals. At Dunsandel the guard cautioned him. He said he was not smoking, and when the train started he lit his pipe again, and smoked to the Rakaia. There was a porter in the carriage of the name of Greenwood. He (Greenwood) told defendant to put his pipe out. He stretched himself out on the seat, and smoked away, paying no attent’on to what had been said to him. Thomas Fowler, a laborer on the Canterbury railways, remembered the 22nd May. He travelled on that day by the 6.30 train to the Rakaia. On that occasion, the guard spoke to defendant at Dunsandel, and told him to put his pipe out. He (defendant) still continued to smoke until they reached the Rakaia. Heard Greenwood, the porter, also speak to the defendant about smoking. Thomas Barron, laborer on the Canterbury railways, travelled from Christchurch to Rakaia by the 6.30 train on the 22nd last month. Defendant travelled by that train. Heard the guard speak to defendant about smoking between Addington and Dunsandel, and told him not to smoke. Saw the defendant smoking in the carriage after the guard had spoken to him. Heard Greenwood speak to defendant about his smoking, and told him not to smoke. Another witness named Thomas Rogers gave similar evidence. Defendant said he had no recollection of smoking, as he had no pipe, and if he smoked, the pipe must have belonged to somebody else. His Worship told defendant that that was very likely. Fortunately for him he had not been placed on his oath, or it might have been a very serious matter for him. A witness whom he had called named George Lyons had distinctly sworn that he had been sitting opposite him, and he was not smoking. He (his Worship) would have to consider whether this witness would not be charged with perjury, as besides the annoyance to passengers of smoking, it placed two railway officers who had sworn to his smoking in a very unfair position, as this evidence of Lyon’s impliad that they had committed perjury. Defendant would be mulcted in the full penalty of £2 and expenses of witnesses, for the charge of smoking. The guard, recalled by his Worship, stated that Lyons and the defendant were more or less nnder the influence of liquor on that day. Lyons, who was in Court, here said that he was very sleepy at the time, and might not have taken as much notice as he should have done, whether Gray was smoking or not. His Worship said that he had considered that view of the matter, otherwise he should have had grave doubts as to whether he should not have committed him for perjury. However, he should notallow him to go scott free, and an information for drunkenness would be laid by the guard against him and the defendant, which he would hear later on. DRUNKENNESS IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE. Andrew Guey and George Lyons, defendant and witness in the previous case, were charged with the above offence on the 22nd May. The guard repeated his former evidence that both the men were drunk on that date when travelling by the 6.30 from Christchurch to Dunsandel. Fined £2 each. BREACH OF PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE. Mary Ann Gilman, living on the Ferry road, was summoned for selling drink without a license. Peter Coyle stated that on the 11th June he was in the defendant’s house. There was a bottle of brandy placed on the table by his order. He asked what the charge was, and defendant said 10s. He gave her a £1 or £5 note ; he could’nt say which, but after he had taken the brandy he became insensible, and when he woke up all his money was gone. Defendant said that Coyle had given her a £5 note and she sent a young man out for the brandy. When he returned she handed defendant the change. His Worship said that he suspected there was a good deal of robbery going on through the illict sale of liquor. At this very house a woman had been fined for the same charge. Had it come before the Court that the defendant had been living with this woman he would have inflicted the full penalty. A stop must be put to this sort of thing and defendant would be fined £2O. ABSENTING HIMSELF FROM HIS HIRED SERVICE. Henry Flavel, junr., was summoned for absenting himself from the hired service of Mr Joseph Rich, plumber. Mr Thomas appeared in support of the information, and Mr Joynt for the defendant. Mr Rich stated that defendant had been indentured to him, and worked for him up to the time of an accident which occurred to him some time ago while at Wilkin’s new buildings. Since then the defendant had not returned to his employ, but had been working at the same trade for others. He had taken great trouble in teaching the boy his trade. Mr Thomas handed in the indentures, the validity of which Mr Joynt objected to, as it was not stamped in accordance with the 9th section of the Act, 1866, which compelled that all deeds should be stamped by the Commissioner, and not by a private stamp, [The indenture bore a 2s 6d adhesive stamp.] An indenture, Mr Joynt continued to say, was a deed, and it had been decided by the Appeal Court that all deeds unless affected by the Conveyancing Act of New Zealand must be sealed. There were several other objections he had to urge, one was the the continual drunkenness of Mr Rich, and another and a fatal one, viz: that under the 9th section of the Masters and Aprrentices Act, 1865, when a lad arrived at the the age of nineteen years his indentures were then determined,

H. Flavel, father of the lad, stated that his son was nineteen years old on the 19th of last March. , . His Worship said after examining authorities that an indenture was a deed and must bear a seal. The last objection taken by Mr Joynt, as to the age of the defendant, was also fatal. The case would bo dismissed. ASSAULT. _ The adjourned case against Christopher Bentley for assaulting his brother William Bentley was called on. This was a family quarrel, and after hearing evidence, his Worship advised the parties to keep away from each other and dismissed the case. violent assault. Charles Hamilton, master of the Charitable Home, was summoned for violently assaulting an inmate named John Sullivan. The plaintiff stated that about three o’clock on the 9th iust. defendant came into the day room, and called him a scoundel and vagabond several times, and asked him what he had been writing and telling people about him, and also said that he (defendant) was the bully of the place. He told Mr Hamilton that he had only written to Mr Callender, complaining of the way the home was being managed. Defendant then placed his clenched fist in his face, and took him by the back of the neck, and violently pushed him down into a chair. Another inmate of the institution aamed Gallagher stated that on that afternoon Mr Hamilton came into the day room, and went up to Sullivan and asked him what he had been writing and saying about him. Sullivan said he had been writing a report to Mr Callender about the home. Defendant then put his fist into complainant’s face, called him a liar and scoundrel, and pushed him down into a chair. Another witness named Rich gave similar evidence. Plaintiff here stated that he wished to put in a letter complaining of the irregularities of the place, and of Hamilton and his wife coming home at 11 o’clock at night and disturbing the inmates. His Worship said he could not read the letter, but he had allowed plaintiff to make these remarks as he had before expressed his opinion that place wanted looking to. Defendant, in reply to his Worship, said that he went into the room to remonstrate about the quantity of coal that was being used, when Sullivan became very abusive, and he merely pushed him to avoid the other striking him. There was not one word spoken about Mr Callender The witness Gallagher recalled by his Worship, stated that there was nothing said about the coal on this occasion, but on the previous day Mr Hamilton had spoken about the coal. It was his opinion that Mr Hamilton was under the influence of drink at the time, as he came very near to where he (witness) was sitting, and he smelt strongly of drink. Mr and Mrs Hamilton came home late one night and he was awoke by the latter calling some other woman a faggot. His Worship said an assault had certainly been committed, aud 'defendant would be fined 10s. He (his Worship) had before expressed himself that this place was not conducted as it should be, and without stating where the blame lay, it was his intention to represent the matter to the Government. Wednesday, June 17. Civil Cases. BARRETT V. DIXON. This was an action in which Mrs Mary Barrett sought to recover £IOO damages from Mrs Sarah Dixon, for assaulting her on the 2Brd October last, by which means her thigh and knee cap were broken, and medical expenses incurred. Mr J. S. Williams appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for defendant. Mrs Barrett stated that on the afternoon of that day she went to Mrs Dixon’s house for a jam-pot and honey-pot that belonged to her. When she asked for them Mrs Dixon slammed the door in her face. She then opened the door, when defendant pushed her into a gravel pit facing the house, and broke her leg. She had been laid up for ten weeks in bed, and the doctor had told her that she would always be lame. She had only spoken to Mrs Dixon, and had not given her cause to act as she did. In cross-examination, Mr Joynt elicited from the witness that she had been drunk several times, but was not so on this occasion, as she had only had two glasses of beer on that day. While lying in the gravel, pit Mrs Dixon jumped on her. Richard Sunderland, baker, stated that on the 23rd October last, as he was going down Colombo street, opposite to Mr Vincent’s malt-house, there was a woman lying on the road in the gravel pit opposite Mrs Dixon’s door. She cooeyed and asked him to assist her home as she could not stand. He placed her in his cart and removed her to her own house. By Mr Joynt—Mrs Barrett had a Maori kit in her hand at the time, and there was a square bottle in it containing beer I think. Dr Campbell stated that on the 23rd October last he was called to see Mrs Barrett. He examined her and found that her thigh was fractured at the hip, and the knee and knee-cap also fractured. There were three separate fractures. The usual treatment was adopted. He did not observe the smell of drink on her that afternoon, but she seemed to be excited. To the Bench—Mrs Barrett was under my charge from five to six months. She was in bed for ten weeks. By Mr Williams —The injury to the plaintiff will be lifelong. Mrs Mary O’Rourke remembered the 23rd October, aud Mrs Dixon coming to her house on that day. Mrs Dixon said, “ That old woman from over the way (meaning Mrs Dixon) came to my house drunk, to annoy me, and would not go away, and I pushed her out, and she annoyed me again, and I pushed her into the gravel pit.” Mrs Dixon did not go to the gravel pit to look after Mrs Barrett, and did not leave my place until after the baker had taken her away. To the Bench —I asked Mrs Dixon if Mrs Barrett was hurt, and she said she thought not. Thomas Haddie lived at Mr Vincent’s malthouse. Mrs Barrett was there on the 23rd October, and had two glasses of beer—one in the malt-house, and one at his place. She was not by any means the worse for drink when she left there, and, as he understood, went direct to her own house. By Mr Joynt—l do not know that Mrs Barrett is in the habit of drinking too much. Mrs Dixon was a witness against me in a case where myself and wife were concerned. Thomas Lunnen saw Mrs Dixon in the malt-house that day. He gave her one glass of beer. She was not the worse for liquor after nor before he gave her the beer. She had no bottle or bag with her that day. Mr Haddie, recalled, stated—lt was the last witness who gave Mrs Barrett the glass

of beer. She had brought some asparagus to his wife, and his wife gave her half a bottle of beer to take home with her. Mr Jojnt called Wra Dixon, who stated that ho worked at Watts’ bacon manufactory. He was away when the accident occurred, but his wife told him about it, Mrs Barrett was always drinking, fighting, and quarrelling with all her neighbors. Cross-examined by Mr Williams—l live on friendly terms with my wife, and have not quarrelled with her. We have never been to Mr Joynt’s office to have our quarrels settled. On the 23rd October my wife told me that Mrs Barrett came there tight, and when the door wis opened she said, “ Are you Mrs Dixon, for I don’t know that you are ?” My wife then shut the door in her face, and she (Mrs Barrett) pushed the door open, and my wife then pushed her away, and she fell into a gravel pit, Mrs Dixon stated the first time Mrs Barrett came to her house she called her very bad names, and anything but a lady. She then shut the door in her face. The second time she came she gave her abusive language, and she pushed her out. She came in twice, and the last time she pushed her hard, and she fell into the gravel pit. It was not true that she jumped on her when she was in the pit. Mrs Bar.-ett seemed to be under the influence of liquor at the time. When Mrs Barrett fell into the gravel pit, she (witness) did not think she was hurt. She then went over to Mrs O’Rourke’s, Cross-examined by Mr Williams —When I went over to Mrs O’Rourke’s I told her I had pushed Mrs Barrett into the pit. I did not think she was hurt at the time. I went over to Mrs O’Rourke’s because I was frightened of Mrs Barrett. I remember saying to the policeman when he came that I was sorry for what had happened. I had heard her leg was broken. I will swear I did not jump on Mrs Barrett when she fell into the gravel pit. Re-examined by Mr Joynt—l did not assault, strike, or beat her. The only thing I did was to push her away. Mrs James remembered some time after the accident calling on Mrs Barrett, and she said she went to Mrs Dixon’s with the intention of getting a jam-mug and to give her the length of her tongue. Cross-examined by Mr Williams—l am on good terras with Mrs Barrett. Mrs James then stated the reasons why she had called on Mrs Barrett; one being with a view to try to have made right between her and Mrs Dixon, as the latter seemed so much put about in consequence of the accident. Henry Packer lived in the neighborhood, and would say that Mrs Barrett was believed by her neighbors to be very much addicted to drink. Mrs Dixon was a quiet respectable woman. Mr Joynt would submit for the defence that this affair had been an unfortunate accident, and if it were a criminal case a Bench of Magistrates on the evidence would not convict. Mrs Barrett had acknowledged in cross-examination that she had several times been drunk. She was proved to have had some drink that day, and she went under colour of asking for a jam pot, but really—as she had told Mrs James—to give Mrs Dixon the length of her tongue. She commenced by abusing Mrs Dixon, and that person, as she was justified under the circumstances, pushed her away, and, unfortunately, in the direction of the gravel pit, and her leg was broken in consequence. Mrs Dixon, as his Worship would see, suffered from nervousness, and she ran away to Mrs O’Rourke’s, but did not know Mrs Barrett was hurt. Everything that had happened, though it was to be regretted, had been brought on by Mrs Barrett’s own conduct ; and he would ask his Worship to look at the evidence, on which he (Mr Joynt) did not think Mrs Barrett was entitled to get money damages for what she had brought upon herself. Mr Williams submitted that he had proved that the assault had been committed, and through it this accident had occurred ; and he felt, no matter whether Mrs Barrett was addicted to drink at any other time, it had been proved that she was not so on this occasion. The evidence of the doctor showed that Mrs Barrett was lamed for life, and he would submit that she was entitled to receive damages for the injury sustained. His Worship said that he must say that plaintiff was entitled to damages. There was no doubt about the assault having been committed, and if he did not think that de fendant had given great provocation he would give heavy damages, as the defendant was without doubt lamed for life, and the plaintiff had used more violence than was necessary even under the provocation received. It was impossible to think that an elderly woman could have been pushed into a gravel pit of the depth admitted by defendant without being hurt. If there had been no provocation he would not consider that all the damages the Court could award would repay a person who was maimed for life. The evidence did not show that plaintiff was drunk at the time of the accident. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £25 and costs. Mr Williams asked for immediate execution, as he had been informed that defendant had been getting rid of all his things. In reply to his Worship, defendant said that he was getting rid of his furniture, as he wanted to get out of the place where he had been living, as it did not suit him, and his wife did not care to stay at home by herself at night tinie. He was not prepared to pay the amount-of the judgment. His Worship said, under the circumstances, he would grant immediate execution. Vincent and Co. v George Collier —Claim, £22. Mr Wynn Williams for plaintiff ; Mr Joynt for defendant. Judgment for defendant, with costs, £4 9s. James Johns v R. Woodford and John Peterson—Claim, £25. Mr Geo. Harper- for plaintiff ; Mr Garrick for defendant. Plaintiff nonsuited, with costs, £6 7s. J. Page vC. E, BirdClaim, £SO. Mr Thomas for defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs, 255. ' W. Allen v H. Tnwood—Claim, £3O. Mr Geo. Harper for plaintiff, and Mr Garrick for defendant. Judgment for £l2 and costs, £2 9s.