MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 46, 23 July 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHUECH. Thuesday, July 23. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M., andColone 1 Packe, J. P.] DRUNK AND FIGHTING.

Martin Connor and John T.ee were arrested by Constable O'Shannassy for being drunk and fighting in Cathedral square. The arresting constable stated that a few minutes before twelve o'clock that morning he' heard a great noise at the Bank of New Zealand, and on going there he saw the two prisoners fighting on the footpath. They were on the ground struggling, and were drunk at the time.

Sergeat Kennedy stated that he was at the watch-house that morning when the men were brought there. They were both drunk.

The defendant Lee asked for a remand, to enable him to produce evidence to prove that he was not drunk, nor had he been fighting. The other man had " bonnetted " him three times, and he only took him by the collar and shook him.

Connor admitted being drunk, but was not fighting. His Worship said there was no doubt but that both of them were dunk and rolling on the footpath. He did not think it necessary to adjourn the case, but would fine each of them 10s.

BREACH OF CITY BYE-LAWS. Hyam Marks, summoned for obstructing the footpath in High street by leaving case 3 thereon, was fined 10s. James Brown, for tethering two horses in Cranmer square, was fined 10s. Joseph Swindle, for permitting two horses to be at large, was fined ss. Walter Hartnell, for driving three horsea without sufficient reins, was fined 10s. Joseph Dickinson, for permitting his horse to run away in Armagh street, was fined 10s.

BREACH OF THE PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE.

J. O. Sheppard was summoned for selling drink in his licensed house, the White Harfc Hotel, on Sunday, the sth inst, and keeping the same open during prohibited hours. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant.

Sergeart Kennedy stat3d that at half-past ten on that night he visited this house in company with Constable Beck. There were six men in the inside bar, and two of them had drinks in their hands. [The names of those persons present were repeated by this witness.] Entered the honse by the side door.

By Mr Thomas—The two gentlemen who had drinks in their hands told me they were lodgers. Constable 13< ck gave corroborative evidence, and stated that Mr Sheppard waa behind the bar at the time.

By Mr Thomas —The two persons who had drink in their hands said they were lodgers.

James Donaldson stated he was in the bar of the White Hait Hotel on that Sunday night. He went in to ask for a Mend, but did not have a drink, nor did he ask for any. Edward Kavenhill, living at the Cavcrsbam Hotel, was in the White Hart that Sunday night. He went in to see if there was any one there he knew, and he then asked for a be«l, and had a glass of whisky. By Inspector Buckley—lt was after the police went I stayed there, but when I found it was so late I had made up my mind to remain all night. W. H. Phillips went to the White Hart that night to see a friend. He had a glass of square gin in the house, but did not know who had supplied it. Fined £5, and expenses of witnesses. BREACH OF CATTLE TRESPASS ACT.

Alexander Cowan was summoned for unlawfully rescuing a cow which was being driven to a pound.

Mrs Jane Howard stated that the defendant's cow had broken into her garden, and she tied it up for her husband to drive it to the pound when he came home. Defendant afterwards untied the cow and drove it away. She did not know who the owner was;

A daughter of the previous witness stated that Mr Cowan came in after the cow waa tied up, untied, and drove it away. He told

her that it was his property, and he would take it. His Worship told complainant that under the Act she should have driveu the cow to the pound at once not knowing who the owner was. This trespass was no doubt annoying, but an unlawful rescue had not been committed under the Act. The case would be dismissed. ASSAULT. Harriet Badcock was charged with assaulting her husband Frederick Badcock, on the 20th July. Complainant asked for an adjournment, as his solicitor, Mr Joynt, was unable to be present. After hearing some of the particulars, his Worship said it would be better for counsel to be present, and adjourned the case until to-morrow. BEEACH OF EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES ACT, 1873. Martin Lightband and Robert Allan, boot manufacturers, Colombo street, were summoned for employing females in their manufactory before the hour in the morning permitted by the Act. ~.... Mr Allan told the Bench that he admitted the offence, but he had consulted with Mr Garrick some little time ago, and, after reading the Act, he told him that he thought it would read both ways. The Act stated that females were not to be employed longer than eight hours a day, and he had not employed them longer. He had been in the habit of employing females from 8 in the morning until 5 in the afternoon, as those hours were to the advantage and by the desire of the girls, some of whom resided a distance from town. His Worship said the Act was explicit as to the hours, which were to be from 9 till 6. Mr Allan said it was an ""advantage to the girls to leave early, especially during the winter evenings. He had written to Mr Montgomery representing this, and he believed that that gentleman would endeavor to have the hours extended. His Worship said the Bench were of opinion that there had been no intention to contravene the spirit of the Act, but the provisions of the Act must be complied with. If, however, Mr Allan would say that this would be the case in the future, the nominal penalty of one shilling would only be inflicted. Mr Allan promised to do this, and said that working until 6 o'clock in the winter, meant working for one hour by gaslight, which would be far more injurious to the girls than working an hour earlier in the morning. His Worship quite agreed with Mr Allan in this. Fined one shilling. VIOLENT ASSAULT. The adjourned case of Thomas and Mary Lawrence for illusing their sou, Charles Lawrence, was called on. Mr J. 8. Williams appeared for the defendants. Inspector Buckley stated that he had no further evidence to submit to the Bench of the illtreatment of the boy on the day named in the information, but he had further evidence as to the general treatment of the boy by one of the defendants, and called. Mrs Amelia Whittington living on the Ferry road, who stated that she had seen Mrs Lawrence beat the boy unmercifully with a stick, and a rope—the rope seemed to be a horse rope. The boy was not very troublesome so far as she knew. Never saw the father beat the boy, but believed he was present when Mrs Lawrence beat him. By Mr Williams—What I mean by beating the boy unmercifully, refers to the instruments used in beating him. I do not know that the boy is very troublesome. MrsWickslivedneardefendant'sontheFerry road. Had seen Mrs Lawrence beat the boy with a stick, and a strap. He boy was crying nearly every day. He came to her one day and asked, for some food, as his mother had gone out and left him none, and said he would like to come and live with her. Did not know whether the boy was troublesome. Had only asked her once for food, but her little boy had told her that little Lawrence sometimes asked him at school for a portion of his dinner. Mr Williams called the boy Charles Lawience, who said that |when he went to Mrs Wicks, she told him to cry out when he was beaten, and she would come to his assistance. By the Bench—l went to Mrs Wicks to ■warm myself. I had been locked up in the bedroom by my mother for running away. I ran away because she beat mc for taking food. By Mr Williams—My mother beat me that day with a cane and father beat me with his hand. At the instance of Inspector Buckley, and in answer to the Bench, The boy, in reply to a question, at first, said that he had not been spoken to about the case, but afterwards said that his mother told him he would have to go out of the house altogether. To Mr Williams—You told me when I was taken to your office to tell the Bench everything. Mr Williams also called Edward O'Farrell, a neighbor of defendant's, who stated he had never seen the boy ill-treated, nor had he heard him crying out. By Inspector Buckley—l am not always at home all day. Mr Williams submitted that the Bench could not convict on the evidence, as the only evidence against defendants was that of Mrs Smith and Mrs Eares. The former person had said that she had seen the boy beaten with a log of wood, but from a plan which he would show his Worship, he would see that it was impossible for her to see into defendants place from the position of her house. Mrs '.Eares' evidence was altogether in favor of the defendants, as she said she had only seen the boy beaten as she would have beaten her own son. Mrs Lawrence had not shown the slightest hesitation in unstripping the boy before Sergeaut Wilson ; and had he been beaten with a log as stated by Mrs Smith, his body must have been covered with bruises, and such was not the case. The boy was a very troublesome one, and it had been found necessary to correct him, and this had not been done too harshly. Had Mrs Smith been present that day he would have been able to show the Bench that a motive of malice underlay her evidence. He would ask the Bench to dismiss the information.

His Worship said that since the case was lait before the Court, he had given it a good deal of consideration, and if the Bench were satisfied that the treatment of the boy had been so bad as some of the neighbors fancied, they would have felt that a long term of imprisonment would be necessary to meet the justice of the case. It was his opinion that the boy was not well treated, but that he led a dog's life, and should be sent away from home. He (his Worship) did not think that

Mrs Smith had any ill-motive in giving her evidence*, and Mrs Eares had distinctly stated that the way in which the boy had been treated made her blood run cold, and other evidence had also been given of the treatment the boy received. He could not too dismiss from his mind the previous conviction against one of the defendants for illtreatment of another son ; neither was the manner of the boy consistent, with good treatment, as he seemed to be extremely nervous, and as if suffering one continual life of miserv. and one everlasting state of punishment, 'through being always beaten and locked up. In reply to hi 3 Worship, the boy said he wanted to go away from home, because he was kept without his food. The defendant, Lawrence, said that the boy had his breakfast with the family, and ate his dinner on the way to school, and then asked some of the boys for a portion of theirs. Mr Williams—" He does'nt look as if he were starved, your Worship." Lawrence also said that the boy was very obstinate, and though he could control him, he had to beat, and sometimes lock him up in his room.

His Worship did not call everlasting punisnment controlling the boy. If he (defendant) said he could not control the boy properly, he (his Worship) would send him to the Industrial School. The defendant declined to have the boy sent there, but would see Mr March, and try and get the lad into the Orphanage again. At the desire of his Worship, Mr Williams promised to try and get the boy into a situation, or, failing that, into the Orphanage ; and with that understanding his Worship said he would mark the case dismissed, the defendants to pay the cost of the witnesses.