MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 156, 3 December 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, December 3. [Before H. P. Murray-Aynsley, J. Ollivier, G. B. Parker ,Esqs, and Captain Clogstouu, J.P.’s.] ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. Wm. Gallagher was charged on remand with baviner been found illegally on the premises of Mr John Allen, Durham street. The offence was proved the previous day, and evidence having been given of the prisoner’s constantly hanging about the bars of public houses, and having been convicted of vagrancy. He was sentenced to three mouths’ imprisonment with hard labor, BREACH OP CITY BYE-LAWS. For permitting horses and cattle to wander the following persons were dealt with—Janet Bee fined 5s ; A. VV. Wright, 5s ; Thomas Aldrige, 5s ; Alfred Osbourne, ss; John Watson, 6s ; E. J. Comer, 5a ; James Gatherer, (2 horses), 10s ; George Heyder, ss; Wm. Walls, ss; and Julia Clarke, ss. For obstructing a thoroughfare by tethering a goat thereon, Michael Cassin was fined 10s. BREACH OP PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE, J. W. Oram was summoned for selling drink during prohibited hours in his licensed house, the City Hotel, on Sunday, 22nd November. A second charge of keeping his house open on that date during prohibited hours was also preferred. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. Sergeant Willis stated that on that Sunday morning he saw three cabs in front of the City Hotel with no [ e'son in charge of them. He went the back of the hotel, remained there for about twenty minutes, He heard men talking inside and corks being drawn. Afterwards he saw three cabmen named Hunter, Hamilton, and M'Taggart come out of the back gate. He saw another person tap at the back window, when the door was opened and he went in. In cross-examination by Mr Thomas, Sergeant Wilson said he could not say whether the last person he saw in waa a lodger or not. P, Hunter, cabdriver, said that on that morning he and two other cabmen spoke to the night porter outside the hotel, and as he had lately been married they asked him to stand champagne. He said he could not do that, but he would mix them some ale-cham-pagne. They went in with him and had this drink, but did not pay for it. In cross-examination this witness said that the night porter was the only person about the house at the time. He did not see Mr Oram there, and did not think he knew anything about their being in the house at the time. No money was paid for the drink. Hunter and McTaggart, cabdrivers, corroborated this evidence. Alfred Gaisford, called by Mr Thomas, said the house waa closed that night at 11 o’clock, Mr Oram’s instructions were not to supply drink after that hour. He had taken the men in under the circumstances stated, and without Mr Oram’s knowledge. The drink he gave them was composed of hock, water, and sugar; Mr Thomas, in his address to the Bench, desired to point out that Mr Oram was not aware of this offence having been committed, and his having been summoned before them might militate against him when applying for a renewal of his licence. The Bench said that Mr Oram was primarily liable, as it was his duty to see that he had servants in his employ who would carry out his instructions. The evidence, however, showed that Mr Oram was not in any way cognizant of the men being in the house that morning, and under the circumstances they would only inflict a fine of £l. BREACH OP RAILWAY BYE-LAWS, John Hunter was summoned for contravening the bye-laws by riding on a buffer attached to a railway carriage on the Lyttelton and Christchurch line. Defendant admitted the offence, and expressed very great regret for what he had done. Having received a strong caution, from the Bench defendant was fined 10s. ASSAULTING A CONSTABLE. Henry Gourlay was summoned for assaulting Mounted Constable Lamb on the IGth November. Constable Lamb stated that on that date he went to the defendant’s shop to execute a distress warrant. After telling him what his business was he (defendant) said that nehad already paid the amountinto Court, and struck the warrant which he (witness) had in his hand with a thong whip, called him some very abusive names, and then struck him twice with the whip, telling him to go and say that he had been whipped. After striking him he (defendant) ran round the counter in his shop. Defendant said that it was the constable’s manner, and his (defendant’s) having already paid the amount to the court bailiff that aggravated him, and he did, in a moment of passion,—not strike him twice, as stated by the constable—but six or seven times, which he regretted having done. There was a witness present at the time, whose name the constable look down, but seemed to think better of calling him. Inspector Buckley told the Bench that he had not thought it necessary to call this witness. The Bench told defendant that he had no right to act as he had done. The fact of his having previously paid the money into court was a mitigatingfeature which would betaken into consideration. He would be fined £l, but a second charge of this nature might be the means of having him sent to prison without the option of a fine. Defendant thanked the Bench, and now the case was over, desired to apologise to the policeman for his conduct on that occasion. ASSAULTS. John McKeown was charged with violently assaulting his wife, Elizabeth McKeown. Mr Garrick appeared for the complainant. Mrs McKeown said she had been married td her husband for a year ai 4 uine months.

He had often ill-treated her, and about a fortnight ago he waa away from home for three days. He returned home at night time and beat her about the head with something he had in his hand. She had suffered very much since from the beating she then received. The only reason she could think for her husband’s conduct was that the money she had when married was now gone. They had built a large house at New Brighton, and while her money lasted her husband had lived on it. She was in bodily fear of him. Defendant stated that he was away on business those three days, and when he returned he found that a number of fruit trees in the garden which had caused him much trouble, had been pulled up and given away. He told her to frighten her, that if they were not returned he would horsewhip her. He had only beaten his wife on the night complained of about the hand with a slipper, and did not strike her about the head. His wife often annoyed him by her irritable temper. The Bench said that women must be protected from such illtreatment, defendant would be bound over to keep the peace for six months towards his wife, himself in £2O and two sureties in £lO each, in default one months imprisonment with hard labor. Susannah Craddock was summoned for having assaulted Elizabeth Hificoke. This was a misunderstanding between landlady and tenant, who are related to each other, the assault complained of being a slight blow with an umbrella. After evidence had been heard on both sides of a contradictory nature, the Bench decided before giving their decision, to hear the cross action between these parties, arising out of the first case, for using abusive and threatening language. The Bench advised the parties to keep away from each other in future, and dismissed both cases, each party to pay their own costs;