MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 36, 11 July 1874, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Satuday, July 11. [Before 0. C. Bowen, Esq. K.M.] FAILING TO ANSWER HIS HAIL. John Lane, arrested on warrant for failing to answer his bail on the Bth instant, on the charge of drunkenness, was brought up. Defendant said he did come to the Court on that day, but was “ took bad,” and had to go home again. Inspector Buckley told his Worship that the man had been drinking, and was still suffering from its effects. Constable Beck proved the charge of drunkenness on the 7th instant. He had to employ a cab to take the defendant to the depot. His Worship told accused that there had been three previous convictions against him, and on one occasion he (his Worship) had to remand him to Lyttelton for a week. He would be fined £5, or in default one month’s imprisonment ; and if he appeared before him again, he would not give him the alternative of a fine. LARCENY. J. R. Clark and R. E. Wright were charged by constable Bass, the former with stealing 13s 6d in silver from the till of Robinson’s hotel, Rakaia, on the night of 9th instant, and the latter with being an accessory to the theft. Constable Bass stated that from information received the previous day he arrested the prisoner Clark, about 12 o’clock noon, at the Rakaia, on the charge of stealing money from Mr Robinson’s hotel. He told accused what he was charged with. He (accused) said drink was the whole cause of it. He (witness) arrested the prisoner Wright on the platform of the railway station at Rakaia for being an accomplice of the other prisoner. When arrested he said he knew nothing about it. Produced 13s fid in silver, which the barman told him was the money taken out of the till by the prisoner Clark, Alexander Black, barman at the South Rakaia Hotel, stated that both prisoners were at the hotel on Thursday evening. They came about half-past 9 o’clock and remained there until the time of the robbery. Ho (witness) left the bar several times while they were there, and on one occasion that he left the bar and was sitting in a parlour he noticed the prisoner Wright apparently watching him. He (witness) then got up quietly, and saw the prisoner Clark behind the bar with his hand in a glass. The prisoner was behind the counter at the time. There was £1 19s fid in silver in the glass, and when he saw witness he dropped some of the silver back into it and made a spring to get over the counter with the remainder. Prisoner had taken 13s fid,which he(witness) took from him, and afterwards handed that amount to the constable. The men were mates, and were in company drinking together. When he caught the prisoner by the coat he said, “ Let me off now; that’s all I managed to get,” Next day Wright said in the bar that Clark told him he was going to show them “ the home touch.” Clark ran away after the robbery, but Wright remained until 11 o’clock.

To the Bench —At the time the robbery was committed there was no one in the bar but the prisoner. The prisoner Clark, in reply to the Bench, said he was very sorry that he had committed the offence, but was under the influence of liquor at the time; and that was the first time he had ever done anything of the sort, and had been before a court. Wright said he knew nothing about the intention of Clark to commit the robbery. His Worship said he would give Wright the benefit of the doubt of his being an accessary to this offence, and would discharge him; but he hoped this wmuld be a warning to him.

In reply to his Worship, Clark said he had only arrived by the Varuna, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Robert Adams was charged on remand with the larceny of a watch from Mr Phillips, of Rockwood station.

Thomas A. Phillips, examined, stated—l am manager of the Rockwood station for my father. 1 recollect the 29th April last. I was at the station that day, and missed my watch and chain. I had seen it last in my own home, and had been wearing it. I had changed my waistcoat to go mustering, and missed it when I had got a mile from home, and did not return for it. I believed 1 had left it in my waistcoat, but when I returned home the waistcoat I had changed was there, but not the watch. I would not be certain that I did not drop it after I had left home, but I believe I left it in my waistcoat pocket. Prisoner came to the station the day 1 left, and I told the men when I returned that I had lost it, and offered a reward, I spoke to prisoner with the rest of the men, and he knew I had lost it. The watch produced is the one, and bears my initials T. A. P. The letters are not as plain as when I lost it, and look as if they had been partly rubbed out. I should think the value of the watch is from £l2 to £l3. The prisoner remained over a fortnight on the station after I had lost the watch.

By prisoner—I had missed the watch before 1 came to the station, I am not sure I lost it in the house. I do not remember telling you personally that I had lost the watch.

The evidence wag read over to the prisoner, who after receiving the usual caution said that he went to the station with another man who would not engage there, but advised him to do so. When he was going to the homestead he found thel watch between the point and the homestead. He had never done anything to deface the initials on it. The prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court, ASSAULT. James Lutton was charged on summons with assaulting his wife Susan Lutton, The complainant did not appear. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant, and said he had a witness present who could state that the assault was all on the other side. His Worship said that Mrs Sutton had called on him, and desired to withdraw the information. He learnt, however, that defendant was drinking that morning, so he thought it would be as well to go on with the case. The case would he dismissed, but drink seemed to have been the whole cause of the complaint, and he would advise

defendant to abstain from drink in the future. Charge dismissed. The hearing of a case against Thomas Helms for assaulting his wife was postponed until Monday, as the summons had not been served. LEITHFIELD. Wednesday, July 7. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M., C. J. Harper and M. Morris,] ALLEGED LARCENY AS A BAILEE. J. Wilson was brought up on remand from the previous day, charged by John Boyce with this offence. The Bench decided to dismiss the case, intimating that Mr Boyce’s proper course would be byjtaking civil proceedings. CATTLE TRESPASS ORDINANCE. James was charged that he did remove certain cattle from the pound without the sanction of the pound keeper. Admitted ; the accused stating that he called to pay the fees, but not finding the pound keeper, and seeing the pound was not locked, he took the cattle home. Dismissed ; the pound fees to be paid, A case for allowing cattle !to trespass against H. Maylcr was dismissed. J. Boyce was fined 5s and costs. BREACH OF POLICE ORDINANCE. Stevenson and Gibbs were charged by the police with creating a disturbance in a public place, by fighting opposite Collier’s City Hotel. Fined lOs each and costs, CIVIL CASES. W. Murphy v D. Brown, adjourned from last Court ; settled out of Court. McNaught v Maher, claim £8 11s ; defendant did not appear; judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs, Brodrick v Fitz Gerald, judgment summons ; defendant did not appear ; warrant to bo issued. J. Ashworth v McLean claim £5, and J. Ashworth v Renaghan, claim £5 ; both claims were for damage to straw by defendants’cattle ; Mr Clark appeared for plaintiff, but plaintiff applied afterwards to conduct his own case; the cases were subsequently adjourned. J. Ashworth v McLean and Knowles, claim £4, value of a saddle said to have been lost by the defendants, who were both boys, loosing the girths for a lark, so that plaintiff, when mounting, would get a spill ; plaintiff was nonsuited. J. Ashworth v Main, claim £l9 19s 1 Id, for breach of contract ; judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs.