MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 52, 30 July 1874, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

: ' : J 'X CHRISTCHURCH. ,1!; i <I - Thursday, July 30. [Before C. C, Bowen, Esq., R.M.] ; , . i DRUNK. ANP DISORDERLY. I, ‘ John Mackay for this offence, was fined 10s or 24 hours, v* > j *j' ' ■ 'V/ < • LUNICY FROM DRINK. Peter Robertson, who had been remanded for a week for medical treatment, was again bropgbt upland, further remanded for examination by two medical men. . . , BREACH OF CITY BYE-LAWS.

’ For permitting horses and cattle to wander in the public streets and roads, the following persons were dealt with:—D. McGuinness (3 horses), fined 10s; W, B. Compton, ss; George' Wilmer, ss; T. Cavbrhill, ss; W. M. Stewart, 5s ; Wm. Thompson, .5s ; Chas. ■ Hanley, 6s; J. Craddock, ss; J. Lamb, ss; and Wm Evans, 6s. For causing an unnecessary obstruction in High street, by allowing 9 boxes to remain

thereon, Edward George was fined 15s. j • Daniel Henderson, for allowing his horse and dray to run away in Colombo street, was fined 10s, and John Simpson for a similar offence in High street, .was also fined 10s. BREACH OF DOG- NUISANCE ORDINANCE. For being the owners of unregistered dogs, William Gaulbraith was fined 20s and Julius 'OF IICKN-SIW ACT/' ' John Baylee appeared to answer an information laid 'against'him 1 for committing a breach of the Licensing Act, 1873, by having more than one public bar leading from the street into his licensed house, the , Hotel, f Inspector Buckley stated that he visited the defendant's! house on the 20th of the present month. There was one bar opening on the public street, and through another door you entered into a passage which led to a private bar. The plan produced by Mr Baylee would show his Worship . thq position of both bars.; > . ■ A. To his Worship—The private bar docs not open immediately on to the street. Mr Baylee said the room used as a private bar was also used as a sitting-room. His Worship had expressed an opinion on this point before, and considered that'where the bar did not open on to the street, that : it could not be.considered a public bar within cthe meaning of the Act. Mr Thomas, who was in Court, said that he waS retained in some of the other cases to be heard that day, and he intended to contend that the words “ immediately on to the street ” in the clause would admit of other bars being used in the house, whether divided by partition or not.

His Worship siaid that where it was one bar divided by partitions, but both opening

into the street, it would be altogether different to the present case; He would dismiss the present information, not because it was a continuous bar divided, but because he thought there was no immediate access to the bar from the public street. Case missed.A similar information against Edward V. Hiorns' of the Central Hotel, was also dismissed, A similar information was laid against D, McGuinness of the Foresters Hotel. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. In this case, the bar was an extended one divided by a partition, having two doors opening into the street, the second compartment being a “sort of bottle and jug department.” Mr Thomas contended that, though the people went in the second door, they had their liquor handed fro ax the other portion of the counter through a half door. His Worship could not accept this line of argument. It was his wish to interpret the Act fairly. He did not, however, think there was an intentional evasion of the Act. He had stated what a public bar was as interpreted by the Act, and he would adjourn the case for a week to admit of the defendant altering his bar as provided by the Act. Case adjourned. Mr H, Oram, of the Golden Fleece Hotel, was summoned for a similar charge.

In this case there were two half doors opening on to the bar in a passage leading from the street, and at which liquor was supplied. Similar evidence was given to that in the previous cases, and his Worship, who did not think there had been an intentional breach of the Act, adjourned the case for a week to give defendant an opportunity of bringing his bar within the meaning of the Act

J. O. Sheppard, 'of the White Hart Hotel, appeared to answer a similar information. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. In this case there were two separate entrances leading into the public bar, one from High street and the other from a lane running at one side of the house. Mr Thomas submitted that the lane was a private right-of-way which Mr Hart might stop up at any time, and was not a public thoroughfare.

His Worship said his impression was that this right-of-way was a public thoroughfare, but might however say that he considered the provision of the Act in the respect of bars would not tend to check drinking, nor was it judicious in every case,

BREACH OF PROTECTION TO ANIMALS’ ACT, H. Edwards and J. Baker was summoned for trespassing with dog and gun on McLean’s Island. ,

Defendants admitted the charge and said that they had received permission from Mr Chisnall to do so, and had paid his son 7s 6d each for that purpose. Mr Coster, manager for Ford and Co., said that before defendants commenced shooting on Mr Chisnall’s land, they fired four shots on his land. Mr Carder corroborated his evidence. Defendants called a witness named Turner who said he was with them at the time, and Mr Chisnall’s son said that this land, where they had been shooting on—before entering Mr Chisnall’s land proper, was disputed. They left the place at once when they were told by Mr Coster that they were trespassing. His Worship did not think there had been an intentional trespass and dismissed the information. Defendants to pay the costs incurred. THREATENING LANGUAGE. Alice Moore was charged with threatening to take the life of William Stocks, on the 28th July. Dr Foster appeared for the complainant. The evidence showed that an intimacy existed between these parties some four years ago in Dunedin. The complainant made a settlement subsequently. Latterly the defendant had been bothering him continually, calling at his place and threatening him. And on the 28th of the present month she called on him and had a ramrod sharpened at the, scre\y and like a bayonet. .. A, man named Allan took this’ from her at the time. She then wished to see his wife, and said she only wanted revenge, and would have his life if she had to wait twelve months for it. By defendant—You did not give me £BO in July last, opposite Miles & Go’s office. You did not strike me that night.

Defendant said all she wanted was for complainant to keep his child, and then she would have nothing more to do with him. Defendant had promised to marry her in January; and when she told him that there was a young man who wished to marry her he (complainant) told her that this young man was not a fit husband for her. Dr Foster called a witness named Allen, who had taken the ramrod from defendant that night. By defendant—l did not strike you that ; night; nor did William Stocks do so. We did not twist you about that night. His Worship told defendant that if she had a grievance she should adopt another course, as the peace must be kept. would not promise, to keep the peace towards the complainant. His Worship strongly urged her to take adviceon this matter; ‘and adjourned the case until tomorrow for that purpose.

VIOLENT A?ID THREATENING LANGUAGE. Wni. ' Jordan was charged with using violent and threatening language towards his wife Eliza Jordan.

Complainant said that she was in bodily fear of her husband, as he had threatened to “ scatter her life on the ground.” This was the third time that he had threatened her, and her life was a misery. By defendant: I have plenty to eat and drink, but I have no appetite for anything. Defendant said that his wife had told the sergeant that she had not sufficient comforts His wife had a very violent temper, and was oftimes very trying.

His Worship advised both parties to try and live amicably together. Complainant said she could not live with her husband, as she was perfectly miserable at home, and was afraid of him.

His Worship adjourned the case until to-morrow, to enable the parties to see what arrangement they could come to, for separation or otherwise. NEGLECTING TO OBEY AN ORDER OF THE COURT. David Evans was summoned for failing to comply with an order of the Court to contribute to the support of his wife and family. Defendant did not appear, Mrs Evans stated that since the 4th June she had only received payment for one week. There was £6 due.

His Worship made an order for that amount. BREACH OF DOMAIN BYE-LAWS.

Mathew Smith was charged on summons with committing a breach of the Domain bye-laws on the 28th June, by allowing a dog to follow him through the Canterbury Domain. Defendant admitted the offence, but said he was a stranger here, and did not know he was breaking the law. Fined ss. RANGIORA. Monday, July 27. [Before J. Crosby, Esq.] ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. Joseph Goodwin, an old man aged 60, given in custody by W. Cone, farmer, Ashley district, was brought up charged with having been illegally on premises. Mr Cone said he found the man on Sunday morning lying in his stable, and had him arrested with a view to have him taken care of, as he was unable to earn a living, rather than to have him punished. Mounted-Sergeant Wallace asked for a remand till Tuesday, to make enquiries respecting the accused. Remanded accordingly. Tuesday, July 28, (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq,, R.M., and J, Crosby, Esq). ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. J. Goodwin, on remand from Monday, was brought up.

Mounted-Sergeant Wallace stated, from inquiries made, Goodwin appeared to want taking care of. The Bench ordered him to be sent to the Christchurch Hospital. USING ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. C. Arkell was charged with having used abusive language towards F. M. nick man. Case proved. Fined 10s and costs. CIVIL CASES. J. Johnston v R. Ashworth, claim £2 8s lOd ; defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and costs. G. Arkell v J. George, claim £lO 10s, value of a horse which it was proved that defendant had paid to Mr Rickman, auctioneer, and the latter had paid to plaintiff. Judgment for defendant with costs. J. Carter v J. Bassingthwaite, claim £1(! 14s Id, Adjourned to August 10th. J. Grossman v St G. Ryder, claim £7 10s ; no appearance of plaintiff. Defendant’s expenses, 20s, allowed.