MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 58, 6 August 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, August 6. [Before C. ,C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.J DRUNKENNESS. Amelia Whale was fined 40s for this offence, ...... t Isaac E. Parker was fined 40s, in default forty-eight hours, for being drunk at the railway station. John Brodie was fined 20s for being drunk in the streets. Edward Trounce was fined 20s ; in default, forty-eight hours, for a similar offence. CREATING A DISTURBANCE. Eliza Bray was charged with having created a disturbance in the streets near the Oddfellows’ Hall. Sergeant Willis gave evidence as to the prisoner being very drunk when brought to the depot. The prisoner asked his Worship to remand the case for the production of evidence as to her being sober. His Worship remanded the prisoner to the next day. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. i j Alexander Smith was charged with this offence, and fined 20s ; in default, fortyeight hours’imprisonment. .7 BREACH OF CITY BYE-LAWS. | _ The following penalties for breach of city bye-laws were inflicted : —James Gilbrow, one horse at-large, ss; M. M. Wyatt, do, 10s ; John Kenaington, horse at large, 6s ; Joseph Hadfield, runaway horse, 10s ; Charles Anderson, neglecting to keep a light burning on hoarding, 10s; Donald Green, 200 sheep at large on railway, 40s. BREACH OF PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE. Edward V. Hiorns was summoned under this Ordinance for having sold during prohibited hours, and obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant, and stated that the first charge could not be sustained as no notice had been given to them of the intention , to proceed on this charge. -- : ... . • j Sergeant Willis. gave evidence to the effect that constable Hughes and himself went to defendant’s house on Sunday, Juls- - When he defendant met them in tjhe passage, he turned round and.,ran as ■ fast as possible to . the back premises, shutting the door in the face of Sergeant Willis and the constable. .Ultimately they , got in and there found a, number of men, borne- of whom were'dodgers and , some not. There was no drink about, but some of the men were.half drunk. ..... ‘ Constable Hughes gave corroborative evidence. " ■ : Thomas Taylor gave evidence as to being at the Central Hotel on the Sunday evening referred to in the information,for the purpose of getting some supper to take into the Times’’office. William Wood deposed to being at the Central Hotel on the Sunday evening when Sergeant Willis and Constable Hughes came in. He asked for a drink, but was refused. During the day he had one or two drinks there. On cross-examination by Mr Thomas, the witness stated that he went in with one of ; Mr Hiorn’s boarders on the Sunday. Patrick M‘Allister, living in Lyttelton, stated that he was, at the Central Hotel on the Monday evening, but had nothing to drink in the evening. He had some drink during the day. For the defence, the barman, R. Madden, was called, who stated that he had instructions from Mr Hiorns not to serve any one on Sunday but bona tide lodgers or travellers. Two of the witnesses came to him and showed a railway ticket in evidence of being travellers. 7 • ■ i A witness of the name of Smith stated that he was a lodger, and was in the passage

on the Sunday night in question. Heard a scuffle, and let go the door; did not know that the constable was outside. It was not Mr Hiors who shut the door. He was outside, and came in after, as well as the constable, who came in together. It was immediately after he let the door go that the constable complained of being hurt. A witness named Spilling said he was in the room that evening. No drink was being served. Did not see the door shut. Went into the house to see the barman, and when he asked for driuk could not get it. Richard Cole stated that he was a-lodger at the Central Hotel. They are very strict in the supply of drink. Did not see drink supplied on Sunday evening. Was present when the police came in. Another'witness was also called, who gave similar evidence to the above. Mr Thomas contended that there was no evidence that drink had been supplied to other than lodgers. As to the closing of the door, he thought it was proved that‘Mr Hiorns had not closed the door. The evidence of the barman was to show that the drinks were supplied to men who were bona fide travellers, and who produced their railway ticket to prove it. He would ask the Bench to dismiss the case. His Worship said that on the evidence, there was a breach of the Act. Fined £5 on each of the informations. Mr Thomas wished to obtain leave to appeal, and asked the fine to be increased. His Worship said no appeal could be allowed, as the. fines were £5 each, and he did not feel justified in permitting unnecessary cost in the matter. It was .hot a question of law, but of fact. In order to make the amount £lO in all, he would make one of the fine £4, in order to allow the witnesses expenses. , r : MILLEES AND BAKEES’ ACT, 1871.

The following bakers were summoned under clauses, 10 and 12 of this Act, for not having carried scales, and for having refused to weigh the bread when requested ;—Andrew Ritchie, one 21b loaf, £oz light; Thomson and Whitfield, 21b loaf, Joz heavy ; George Hawker, Caledonian road, one 2lb loaf, J-oz heavy; Augustus Thiele, Gne 4lKloafj 4Joz light; Phillip Taylor, one 21b loaf, correct ; W. Viney, Papanui toad, one 41b loaf, correct weight ; J. A. Hansman, one 41b loaf, 3ozs light; Alexander Ritchie, 41bloaf, foz light ; George Brown, one' 41b ' doaf/J loz light. •C.‘! t’ tit Arthur Ritchie was first charged. Mr Walsh, inspector of weights and measures, stated that he purchased from the defendant a 21b 1 loaf. He asked Mm if lie had a 21b loaf of batch bread, and Ibe ; said • ““yes.” He asked him for a 21b /loiaf, for which he paid 3Jd. Told him who he was. After witness bought it he asked hilp to Weigh it, and he refused, akheffifidlAoneales. Had paid the money before he asked him to weigh, it. The bread produced is neither fancy, French bread, of fplls, tgf the rbeit of witness’s belief. The purchase Was made, he thought, on the. jpast., town, belt, and Mr Ritchie has a shop in town. ! ‘ This' Was the first time be had attempted to put the Act in force. : The evidence iff the other cases were similar to this, all being purchased in the streets from' the different carts. fT Mr Joynt submitted tbat there was no offence under the.. Act. The 10th section says, that the bread must be sold by weight, and there was nq .evidence, to' the bread had not been weighed. The lOth' section simply goes to show that the bread must be sold by weight) and if the%eight was light the purchasers had a ciTiPreffiedy. There was no evidence to. show tbßtl.'false weights were used. With regard to the 12th section of the Act, there were two reasons why the case should be dismissed. The Act does not- require that the weights should be carried in the carts; it was sufficient if they were kept on the premises, and it was admitted that the defendants had shops in town or the neighborhood, and were not hawkers. ’ The next point was that the bread should have been weighed previous to purchase, andi it had been admitted that the bread was bought first and then asked to be weighed.. For these reasons, he concluded that the case Should be dismissed. His Worship stated he would give judgment in a week. :: DESERTING FOUR CHILDREN., , B. Jeffrey was charged with deserting his four children. I Two witnesses were called to prove that the defendant had been absent from his home on the 26th; . Sergeant Wilson deposed to having visited the house of defendant in consequence of a report made as to how the house was conducted. On that occasion he found a wellknown prostitute < in' the house and the children outside crying. - • His Worship said he dismiss the case. • r Defendant said he ’was vrillihgiand' able to support bis children, but would like some arrangement to be made for their support, as he felt incompetent,to look after,fhen|.in his own home.' r , 7 7 | / His Worship said inquiries 1 would hemada. ASSAULT, Charles Clarke was charged with having violently assaulted John Hughes. . ' * • Mr W. H. Smith was called, whQ . qeposed to, plaintiff and defendant Struggling under the verandah 'in Cashel' 'street, ana after appe time went and separated them, . Saw defendant kick the plaihtiif.'' * ' ' Fined 10s and costs. LYTTELTON. ' H ‘ Wednesday, August 5. ! 1 • [Before W. Donald, Esq., E.M.J DRUNKENNESS.Stephen Sullivah, arrested by constable Reilley, charged 1 with this offence, was dismissed with a caution. K-h> f.U U. I'4 REFUSAL OF DUTY. Wm Elliott, Wm Jones, Neill Gorginson, and Edward Lloyd, -seamen belonging to the ship Eastern Monarch, 'were charged upon ■the information of Captain Donaldson with this offence, and each sentenced to a.week’s ■imprisonment. ) u. i’ >T v iJllir\ BREACH QF THE MERCHANT /SHIPPING ACT, John B. Sherlock, master,of.the barque Uqion, was charged with neglecting to provide proper accommodation, for pi? crgw. This case was adjourned from yesterday, for the captain to obtain professional assistance. ~ •; .- . - - g Mr H. Nalder appeared op behalf of the crew; and Mr R. D.'Thomas for the captain of the ship, and asked the Bench what Act the information had been laid under"

Upon being informed that it was nnder the 231 section of the Merchant Shipping Act, he contended that section' was not'in force in the colonies, and cited the Act in support of the same. The Bench dismissed the case. upon the objection raised by Mr Thomas, " J ,i iiA2tt£ .cu€

Mr Nalder then applied to the Benclji to receive the complaint of the creV under the 232nd section of the Act. i Mr Thomas here left the Court, and stated that he hoped the Court would not consider this act discourteous, the information being dismissed he could not see that he had anything further to answer. Mr Nalder then proceeded to call evidence ‘ r .u • 1 iv: It i n i f, Captain H. McLcllan, being the first witness, stated that upon the-request of ( the Resident Magistrate he, in company with Captain 'Galbraith, examined: bh.e forecastle of the barque in question, and found it in a very wet, damp state. He had had a good deal of experience in such cases, and had -pever seen a forecastle In such a state. It was quite unfit for human habitation, : or even for an animal. He would be very sorry to put a valuable sheep of his in such a place —»; pigs might certainly exist there. Captain Galbraith was next called to corroborate the evidence of the former witness. The case was then stopped. KAIAPOI. Wednesday, August 5. [Before J. Birch, Esq.] r , ■,; DBUNK AND INCAPABLE. Michael Horn and Daniel Tweed, arrested /by constable Haldane at 11.30 on Tuesday evening, were brought up. -•The constable stated both were helplessly intoxicated and lying in Charles street. The night was severely cold and frosty. , , ~ 1 Accused were cautioned and the cases dismissed. v - ‘ " ’ 1 -