MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 241, 18 March 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, March IS. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Thomas Davis, charged with drunkenness, was lined 20s ; John Burns, 20s, and James Connor, ss. William Brook, for being drunk while in charge of a horse, was fined ss, ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. Hugh Gibson was charged, on remand, with being found inlegally on the premises of Mr Skelton, Papanui road. The prisoner was arrested on the night of the 15th February on the charge, and coming down the Whately road he tussellcd with the constable and escaped. He was arrested by Mounted-constable Beck on Tuesday last at Kaiapoi. The charge of being illegally on the premises was dismissed ; for escaping, a fine of 5s was inflicted. BREACH OF CITY BYE-LAWS. For permitting horses and cattle to wander the following persons were dealt with : Andrew MeTaggart (two informations), fined 15s; W. Campbell, 5s ; John Hanna, 5s ; Ralph Trigann, 5s ; Fredk. Peiper (two informations), 10s ; James Hogg, 5s ; R. McPherson, dismissed ; W. Harris, ss; Thomas Dennis, os; Patrick Flanney, os;

Robert McPherson, ss; Frank Davie, ss, and 8s expense of witness. Frederick Tetley was summoned for riding across the footpath in ‘High street on three separate occasions. Mr Thomas appeared for defendant. Mr Lee, storekeeper, gave evidence of the defendant having, led a horse across the footpath on the dates mentioned by him. Mr Thomas contended that the informations were bad, as the wording of the byelaw only referred to riding or driving, and according to the evidence the defendant was proved only to have led the* horse across. The horse was only being led into the back premises by the only mode of access. Permission had since been obtained from the City Council to erect a crossing there, and this had been done. Informations dismissed. For being absent from his horse and dray, Isaac Davis was fined 10s. George Wells, summoned for allowing a horse to wander, was fined ss, and Julia Clark, ss. OBSTRUCTING THE THOROUGHFARE. The hearing of informations against eight cabmen, for obstructing the thoroughfare, was, on the application of Mr Garrick, allowed to stand over until the 15th April, when the motion for prohibition will have been argued in the Supreme Court. BREACH OF PUBLIC HOUSE ORDINANCE. William Letford was summoned for contravening the above Ordinance by serving a drunken man with liquor on the 4th inst., in his licensed house, at Addington. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. John Murray stated that he was in defendant’s house on the night of that date. He had some beer there, and saw some supplied to aMr Hayton. This person seemed excited when he came in and when he left, but nothing more. He (witness) went home with Hayton as he seemed to ramble when talking. He didn’t see Hayton have anything to eat in the house. Hayton only had two pints of beer, and though he wanted another the landlord would not allow him to have it, The only reason why he accompanied Hayton home was because he seemed to be wandering in his mind, and he had heard that Hayton had been unwell for some little time. Hayton seemed very much excited when he saw his (witness) boy. Believed the man had no children of his own. Hay - ton was since dead. Inspector Buckley desired to ask the witness if had not stated at the inquest that it was because Hayton was intoxicated, that he and a man named Taylor went home with him. Mr Thomas objected to any question being asked relating to the evidence given at the inquest, unless the depositions taken at the time were before the Court. Witness to the Bench—The man might not have been so excited if he had not taken the beer, William Taylor, blacksmith, residing near the Cattleyards, Addington, remembered being in defendant’s house on the 4th, and had a pint of beer. Hayton was there, and asked him to have a drink. He, Hayton, and Murray went down the road afterwards. Hayton seemed to be a little on, but appeared more stupid than drunk. Had some biscuit and cheese in the house that night. Had known Hayton for some years, and he was always stupid when he had taken a drop of drink. When he went home with Hayton that night he saw his wife. In cross-examination the witness said that he did not consider the man was quite in toxicated that night, but he thought it necessary to see him home. Did not think Hayton frequented defendant’s house often. William Pearce, called by Mr Thomas, stated that he was in defendant’s house that night. Murray, Taylor, and Hayton were there, all of them very quiet. Hayton did not seem to be the worse for drink, and when he was going out he passed him and said “ Good evening.” Had only seen Hayton in the house once before. He had been ailing for some time, and though he had known Hayton for ten years he had never seen him drunk. For some little time past he had not seemed right in his mind. In cross-examination by Inspector Buckley, the witness said that he remembered hearing that Hayton was once locked up for drunkenness. Hayton might have returned to the house that night without his knowing, and might have visited the house several times without his seeing him. Sarah Clegg, a little girl, stated that so far as she saw, Hayton had only half a pint of beer that night, and hadhelped himself to some biscuits. He was not intoxicated when she last saw him that night. In cross-examination, the girl said that Hayton was in the house when she went to bed.

Inspector Buckley would ask the Bench to adjourn the case, if the plea of insanity was put forward by Mr Thomas, and he submitted that one at least of the witnesses had acknowledged having partaken ot beer without any other refreshment. The Bench would be aware that defendant only held a beer and wine license. Mr Thomas contended that it had been proved that all the witnesses but one had been served with biscuits, and the evidence was distinct about the man not appearing to be intoxicated. Under the circumstances it would have been impossible for a publican to be aware that a man was intoxicated unless he had some appearance of being so. His Worship considered the charge of selling beer without other refreshments proved, and would inflict a fine in that case. The second information would be dismissed, USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE. George Wadsworth was charged under the Vagrant Act with using obscene language in his dwelling-house in Kilmore street. Sergeant Kennedy stated he was passing defendant’s house about half-past eleven on the night of 25th February. He could plainly hear in the street the defendant use very filthy language to his wife. There had been very numerous complaints of defendant’s conduct, which was a continual nuisance to the neighborhood. Fined 20s. BREACH OF INSPECTION OF MACHINERY ACT, 1874. On the application of Inspector Buckley, the information against George Croll and John Miln, for a breach of the above Act, was adjourned for a week, in the absence of a necessary witness, FAILING TO SUPPORT HIS CHILD. A case against Charles Springer, for failing to support his illegitimate child, was dismissed. assault. Daniel Howard was summoned for assaulting R. J. Archer. A telegram had been received by the Bench, stating that the complainant had missed the train at the Ashburton. Defendant said he was not the man at all, and had lost his time that day in attending

the Court. He would also have to pay a witness for his attendance. Case dismissed, 5s allowed for witness. ASSAULT AND USING THREATENING LANGUAGE. William Mackay was summoned for assaulting Jane Green, and using threatening language to her. The complainant stated that on the 3rd instant, in the absence of her husband, the defendant went to her house for some of his things, a portion of which he had previously removed secretly, and because she refused to let him have them, he took her by the shoulder and shook her, and called her very bad names, and said he would do for her. He left and returned again, and shook her a second time. This evidence was corroborated by another female witness. A witness named King, who was with defendant on the first occasion, said he did not see him shake the complainant. The Bench considered the charge proved, and fined defendant 20s, USING VIOLENT AND THREATENING LANGUAGE. John Pugh was summoned for using violent and threatening language to his wife Mary Jane Pugh. Mrs Pugh stated that she had been compelled some time ago to leave her husband. He then signed the pledge, and went and begged of her to return to him, She did so, and after her baby was born, her husband treated her very cruelly. He had been drinking again for two months, and had led her a very miserable life, threatening to ill-use both her and her children. She had supported him for some time past by her own earnings, and would like an order for separation, and that her husband should he compelled to contribute to the support of his children. Defendant was ordered to find two sureties in £2O each, and himself in £4O, to keep the peace towards his wife for twelve months, or be imprisoned for one month. FAILING TO OBEY AN ORDER OF THE COURT. Thomas Helms 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, and his Worship ordered a warrant to be issued for his arrest.