MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 17, 19 June 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH Friday, June 19. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) STEALING FROM THE PERSON. Joseph Hannam was charged with stealing a purse and between £4 and £5 from Chas. Oliver. Constable Beck stated that yesterday afternoon ho was called to the Caversham Hotel, and the prisoner was pointed out to him as the man who had stolen a pipe, purse and some money from a man named Oliver. Prisoner asked what would be done to him ;c nothing was found on him. On searching him found half sovereign, purse and 4s 6d in silver. The purse and note produced were handed him by a person who said they had been given him by the prisoner. Had also received the 2s-picce produced, which had also been given to a man by the accused, Wm. Childs, laborer, living at the Central Hotel was at the skittle alky of the Cavertham Hotel the previous day. A man named Oliver was there and was lying down asleep. Prisoner was there at the time, and he (witness) saw him with the purse in his hand leaving Oliver. Sang out to him and said. “ Halloa mate that won’t do.’’ Prisoner then threw the purse and note produced back. Gave the prisoner two shillings the previous day. Knew the pipe produced, it belonged to him. He had it the previous morning, and did not give it to any one, but missed it shortly before the other affair happened. John Holden, employed at the gas works, saw the prisoner on the previous afternoon at the skittle alley of the Caversham Hotel. Saw the bag produced in the prisoner’s hand. At the bar of the hotel afterwards he gave him 2s. Saw prisoner take the meershaum ' pipe and case produced out of Oliver’s pocket. He (Oliver) |was sitting down at the time. At first prisoner would not give the pipe back, but when they closed the door on him he was compelled to return it. The pipe belonged to Childs. Charles Oliver, laborer, was at the Caversham Hotel (skittle alley the previous day. While there he (witness) lay down on a form and went to sleep. Ho was afterwards awoke by a man named Childs, who told him he was robbed. Missed four single £1 notes half sovereign, and some silver. The notes were in his left hand trowsers pocket, and the gold and silver in his waiscoat pocket. Was certain he had the money on him when he lay down. Was quite certain that the bag or purse produced was the one his notes were in. The pipe produced was also taken out of his coat. The prisoner called Joseph Hale, landlord of the Caversham, who stated that he had been told Oliver was robbed. He then told prisoner to give the money back. Prisoner said he bad no money and consented to be searched. When he searched him he found half a sovereign and some silver, and he then told a man to go for a constable, as he knew prisoner had no money when he came into the house. He believed Oliver had lent the prisoner the pipe. His Worship said that with regard to the pipe, that was taken openly, but there was no doubt of a larceny having been committed so far as the money was concerned. Inspector Buckley called chief-detective Feast who said he had observed prisoner hanging about after drunken men. He came to Christchurch from the West Coast, and he (the detective) had been compelled to caution him. His Worship said he looked on these sort of robberies as very disgraceful. The prisoner was an able-bodied man, and to ask a man for 2s, as had been stated in evidence, made the matter worse. He would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor. USING PROFANE AND OBSCENE LANGUAGE. George Wadsworth and Mary Wadsworth, who had appeared on summons the previous day to answer the above charge, and had been committed for contempt of Court, were again brought up. Mrs Amy Clark stated that the defendants were both in the habit of using very profane language to the annoyance of the neighbourhood. Mrs Kate 0. Mumford lived near the defendants. They were in the habit of using very bad language, and on the Bth June, the language used by Mrs Wadsworth was shocking. She was calling out so loud that all the neighbours could hear her. Mrs Alice Kitchener remembered the defendants fighting on the Bfch of the present month. They were a great annoyance to the neighbourhood, and for the last six weeks had been constantly drinking. The neighbors on the opposide side could hear the blasphemous language that defendants were using that day. Richard Clark gave similar evidence, and stated that Wadsworth had threatened to shoot him. Wadsworth, in defence, said that before he went to live near Clark there was no drink used in his family, and his wife was a Good Templar, and Clark had offered her rum to induce her to violate her pledge. His Worship said that fortunately for the defendants the information had been laid under the bye-law. He had heard of the manner they had been going on, and whatever quarrels they had in private they should not wash their dirty linen in public to the annoyance of their neighbors. They would be fined £5, or in default a mouth’s imprisonment each, and he would advise defendants to abstain from drink in future, aud to take the pledge. The defendants promised they would do so. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. James Brown for this offence was fined 10s. Lucy Tracy for drunkenness aud soliciting prostitution near the Theatre was lined 20s or forty-eight hours, and severely cautioned against appearing in Court again. Mary Holmes, for being drunk, was fined 20s or forty-eight hours, and Thos Salton, for a similar offence was also fined 20s. DRUNKENNESS, James M'Mahou was arrested by Sergeant Kennedy for this offence.

The Sergeant stated that as he was passing the Criterion Hotel the previous evening,he saw the accused thrown out of that Hotel by the barman. The man was helplessly drunk at the time. His Worship asked if the barman was in Court, and ordered that he should be sent for, as it was monstrous that a man who was in a helpless state of drunkenness should be bundled out of a public house and it raining heavily at the time. When the case was again called. J. Catchpole, barman at the Criterion, stated that accused came into the hotel the previous night apparently sober. He had one glass of brandy, and got suddenly drunk ; he (witness) then placed him on some casks, where ho lay for about two hours, and at 10 o’clock he put him out, and propped him up outside. There was a friend with the accused at the time, and he thought he would take care of him. Constable Hughes stated that he was on duty about the theatre. He saw the accused go into the hotel very much the worse for drink, and he afterwards saw him lying down in the bar. He was passing the place when the man was put out. There was a man there whom he thought was his mate. The accused here said he had no mate. George Ogilvie stated that he saw the man pushed bodily out of the hotel. It was raining heavily at the time. He had used the expression that it was not right to push a man out of an hotel in the state accused was. He was not the man’s mate. His Worship said it was a monstrous thing to bundle a man out of an hotel helplessly drunk. If the man were incapable a policeman should have been called, as the man might have been killed. Such conduct as this on the part of any barman was perfectly monstrous. The barman remarked that when he put the man out he waited until the policeman came up. The witness Ogilvie—“That is not true your Worship, as the man was lying on the ground before the policeman came up. In reply to his Worship, Constable Hughes said that the man was very much the worse for drink when he went into the hotel, and he saw him shortly afterwards lying down ,- n the bar. In reply to his Worship the barman said that the man appeared to be apparently sober when he supplied him with the glass of brandy, but he suddenly became helpless. His Worship mentioned to Inspector Buckley that the landlord of the Criterion must be told about this conduct, and some explanation was necessary. The barman asked permission to say that if any fault had been committed it had been by him, as Mr Bayley knew nothing about the matter, and he desired to apologise for what he had done. He had only lately gone into the buiiness and he did not know that he was acting wrong. He should take care that anything like this would not occur again. After pointing out the course a person should adopt under similar circumstances, his Worship accepted the apology and fined M‘M ahon 5s for being drunk.