MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 20, 23 June 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, June 23. (Before C. C. Bowcn, Esq, R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. John Noal for drunkenness was fined 10s. Robert Gilkes was also fined 10s, and Charles Dean, 2Qs, or forty-eight hours. LARCENY. John Brighton was charged with stealing a watch and chain in February last, from Frederick Stafford in England. Chief-detective Feast stated that he arrested prisoner the previous day at the Immigration Barracks. Told him he was charged with stealing a watch and chain produced in London in February last. He made no reply. He (witness) had previously got the watch from Constable Little at the Barracks.

Frederick Stafford stated he was a tailor, and arrived by the Ballochmoyle. Knew the prisoner in London. On the 6th February was staying at the Magpie and Stump, Ernest street, Regents Park. Intended to come to New Zealand in the Atrato. The prisoner was coming with him. They could not get their contract tickets for that vessel. They then went to Regents Park and stayed at the hotel mentioned. They slept in the same bed. Before he went to bed one night he placed the watch and chain produced on the dressing table. Prisoner awoke him at four o'clock next morning to get up and see the Atrato. start. He wouldn't go and prisoner got into bed again. When he awoke again prisoner was not there, and the watch had been taken away. The next time he saw the prisoner was yesterday afternoon. He (prisoner) came out in the Atrato. The watch and chain produced are those he missed, and belonged to him. Prisoner had no right to take them, and he (witness) was not aware he was going away. He (witness) landed that day three weeks, and reported the matter to the police. Wm. Jones stated that he was a carpenter, and recently arrived by the Atrato. Prisoner was a shipmate of his. Sailed on the 7th February from London docks. After they had been to sea for some weeks they had to put back to Plymouth. When there prisoner offered to sell him a watch and chain. Asked him (prisoner) to let him look at it. The watch and chain produced are the simc. Bought them from the prisoner, and gave him 15s for them, although he first asked 18s. Yesterday prisoner came to him and wauted to buy them back. He (witness) said he.would take £1 for them. Prisoner gave him 16s, and was to give him the is balance at another time.

The prisoner in defence if aid that he lent the prosecutor a few shillings in London, and he (prosecutor) gave him the pawn ticket of the watch and chain. He (prosecutor) then took the watch and chain out of pawn. They had worked partners a week in London, and were to get 30s for their work. The prosecutor drew the whole of that amount, and did not give him his half, and he considered under the circumstances that he had a right to keep the watch. The prosecutor, recalled by his Worship, said that the prisoner had lent him some money, aud he gave him the ticket to keep until he repaid him. He did draw the whole of the wages for that week, but he had repaid the prisoner the amount he borrowed from him.

The prisoner again said that he also paid £1 of the prosecutor's passage money and paid 10s for his fare up to London. He had not been repaid this money, and he also main aiued him.while in London.

Prosecutor, in reply to his Worship, stated that the prisoner had paid this 30s, and also paid for his board in London. He only lent him the pawn ticket as security for the 5s which he had repaid him. His Worship said he had desired to hear all the circumstances of the case, to sec if anything' came out in mitigation of the theft, as there was no doubt but that the watch had been stolen. He would remand the case until to-morrow, as he was doubtful whether the Court possessed jurisdiction, the theft having been committed in England. LARCENY. George Barker was charged with stealing 2s Cd off the counter bar of the City Hotel. Constable Smith stated that prisoner was. given into custody that morning by the barman of the City. Hotel for stealing half-a-crown off the counter in the bar of that hotel.

Thomas Bilbey, mariner, stated that he was in the bar of the City Hotel that morning, and saw half-a-crown on the counter. He saw the prisoner sweep off the money with his right hand, aud put it into his left-hand pocket. A man who was shouting for drinks in the bar placed the money down on the counter. Prisoner, when challenged about the half-crown, took the money out of his pocket, and said he had only done it for a lark. The prisoner then left the bar, and was given into custody by the barman. Charles Jackson, barman at the Citv Hotel gave similar evidence, and stated that the prisoner handed him the half-crown out of his coat pocket alter the previous witness had told him that he had taken it. He (prisoner) was a perfect nuisance about the place. The prisoner called Sergeant Willis as to character, who said that three months ago he .was locked up for being drunk, and two ,monthsago he (prisoner) was escorted down from the Hurunui, on a charge of petty larceny, and had only lately been released from gaol. Since then he had been hangiujr about (lie bars of public houses. [Laughter.] His Worship told the piisoucr that he had called the Sergeant to give him a character, aud he (his Worship) had not heard a very good one of him. If prisoner persisted in hanging about hotel bars, he would got himself into serious irouble. He had no doubt he had stolen the half-crown, and he would be sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labor. VIOLENT ASSAULT. The adjourned case of Samuel S. Brightning, for violently assaulting his wife, was called on.

A second information against the defendant had been laid that morning for violently assaultiag the complainant the previous night.

Mrs Brighting stated that about twelve o'clock the previous night her husband burst the door open. She asked him why he had done so, as the key was under the door. He then called her some names, and at once "collared" her and ill-treated her. Constable Adams stated he heard a noise the previous night proceeding from the direction of the defendant's house. He went there, and saw the man dragging the woman towards the house. He had hishauds under her arms. She was screaming loudly at the time.

Mr W. H. Smith stated that he was coming from the Government Buildings between twelve and one o'clock that morning. He heard a female scream " Murder," and at once went towards the place, when complainant said her husband was murdering her. He (defendant) said he was not, and that he was only takiDg her home. She said she would drown herself. Some other persons came up then. The woman looked as if her husband had been striking or dragging her along. Some short time afterwards he saw a woman running along towards the river without her bonnet on. Believed it was Mrs Brighting. On the first information defendant called a witness named John Lane, who said that these parties lived very unhappily. Mrs Brighting followed her husband about at all hours of the night, and when he (witness) had spoken to him about it, he said he could not prevent it as she was " devilsome" The complainant called a witness named Swindle, who said that he had known Mrs Brighting for about rive years, and he had been very much surprised when he read that Mrs Brighting drank. He did not know that they quarrelled. Complainant recalled by his Worship, stated that some little time ago she and her husband had taken the pledge. He kept it only for three months, and she for six months. Why her children had been neglected lately was, that she had been suffering from asthqia. It was only since the schools broke up that her children had not gone there.

His Worship told complainant that he had evidence of his neglect in the girl which he had been compelled to send to the Industrial School.

After some further evidence, his Worship observed that he had said that he would make all enquiries, and he had done so. He had learnt that she was inclined to be extravagant. Was it true that she had lately paid £4 for two large flower glasses? Mra Brighting replied that these glasses were purchased with her children's money. In reply to his Worship, defendant said he would consent to a separation, and he would take the children, and would take care that they should be sent to school at nine o'clock every morning.

Chief-detective Feart called by the Inspector, gave the defendant a very good character for being a hard working man. He (witness) had seen the complainant out after her husband late at night, and had also seen the children leaving the house at very late hours.

His Worship said that he considered it would be best for both parties if they separated, He must tell the complainant that she hcid been very remiss in her attention to her family, and the evidence at any rate showed that her husband was a hard working man, he w.ould advise both parties to see a lawyer, and make arrangements for a«eparation, and he would see that due provision was made for the care of his children. With this object he would adjourn the case until to-morrow.