MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 293, 20 May 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday May 20. (BeforeJG. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M.) Vagrancy. —William Clark and Elisabeth Howell, who had been found living in a tent on the river bank, near the Carlton Hotel, were brought up on this charge. Chief Detective Eeast and the arresting constable detailed the life the female prisoner had beerliving. The tent in which the prisoners were found belonged to a man who was convicted the previous day. Clarke asked the Bench if a man who had plenty or food and some money could be brought up as a vagrant ? After further evidence had been given-, Howell was sentenced to Twelve months’imprisonment with hard labor, and his Worship remanded the male prisoner until later in the day. ; s <: Drunk and Disorderly.— John Thomas, charged with this offence, was lined 10s. Horses and Cattle at Large.— For permitting horses and cattle to wander the following persons were lined :—James Smith, lined os; J. B. Taylor (goat), ss; Janies Chambers, ss. Breach op City Bye-Laws. —A charge against Henry Dupree, for permitting his horse to run away, was dismissed, as it was shown to have been the result of an accident. For a similar charge James Willis was lined 10s, and William Evans was also fined 10s. Forpermittiug his chimney to catch on fire John Lane was fined 10s; William Frudhoe and W. H. Cooper, summoned for neglecting to keep a light burning on two occasions on some building materials in Lichfield street, were fined 10s in each case. Using Obscene Language. —Eliza Bray was charged with using obscene language in Gloucester street. , Constable Rowland proved the offence. Joseph Pappcrill stated that on the 29th March he heard a noise in the street, and heard the defendant call her husband verv h?.d pttees. A crowd ccFectsd •

through the conduct of the defendant. Defendant stated that on returning to her house that clay she found an improper woman in the house with her husband, and that was why she had used the improper language, as she felt very much annoyed. Fined 10s. Breach of Hackney Carriage ByeLaw, —John Miller was summoned for driving a cab for hire, he not being licensed at the time. Dr Foster appeared to prosecute for the City Council. Sergeant Wilson gave evidence of asking .defendant that day if he had a license, and he replied not. The defendant was plying for hire when he spoke to him. Dr Foster told the Bench that the City Council were doing all they could to discover whether the bye-law was to be opposed. He had been informed that the whole of the expense already incurred by the cabmen would fall upon one or two persons As the Council had been put to a great deal of expense, he would ask that his fees should be paid by the defendants. He would have a large number. His Worship thought it was too early to consider this question yet. He'would inliict a fine of 10s on defendant. A case against Thomas Goodger was withdrawn' at the request of Dr ’ Foster. Charges of plying for hire were preferred against James Reid, John Dal wood, James Kearney,’ Hafis Clark, and Samuel Thomas, and a fine of 10s iiillicted in each case. Some of the defendants stated that they had already applied for licenses which they had’not taken up. Unregistered Dogs, For being the owners of unregistered dogs, tlie following eirsous were lined—Robert • Crooks, 20s ; enry Cooper, 20s ; Fanny Franklyn, 20s ; and Robert Wilson, 20s. Breach of Police Ordinance. —David WoodcOx was summoned for carrying night soil on a road at Avonside, on the Bth ,of November, at 7.30 a.m. Constable Watt proved the offence, and-stated that there was. about a bucket full of night soil in defendant’s- dray. Defendant called a witness, who stated that on that morning, when the constable inspected the drays, he said they were clean, and that they (the drivers) might go on. Fined 10s. Breach of Railway Reg ulations. —Henry Phillips, summoned for getting into a train whilst in motion, was fined 10s. Assault. —William Kossiter was summoned for assaulting 0. E. Dickenson on the 12th May. Complainant, who was in. the employ of defendant, statqd that Mrs Ros; sitsr had asked him to cut some wood, which he refused to do. Defendant, then ordered him to leave the place, but refused to let him have his coat, and afterwards- when he was putting his coat on, defendant caught him by the throat, kicked . him and him down. He afterwards J showed one of the men the marks. Complainant called witnesses, who proved that he had been very impertinent to Mrs Eossitor. Defendant when he kicked him only had slippers on at the time. Hisj Worship told complainant that he was one of those impertinent young lads who required to be kept under. Case dismissed. A Caution. —William Clarke, a young lad who had been remanded in the earlier portion of the day on the charge, of vagrancy, was .brought before his Worship again. His Worship told him that he was loth to send him to prison, he (defendant) was a young man, and could do well in the colony if he desired. If he continued to lead the life he had been leading for. the last fortnight, ho would assuredly appear before him again. If he wanted a situation he would help him to obtain one. He would now be discharged No Light on Cab. —Andrew McTaggart, summoned for driving on the night of the sth May, without any lights on his cab, was fined 10s. Breach op Stamp Act.— J. W. Gray was summoned under clause 19 for committing a breach of the Stamp Duties Act, by omitting to cancel a duty stamp on a receipt for £.lO given by him on the 16th March. Mr George Harper appeared for the defendant. Frederick Pavitt called, stated that on the 16th March ho paid the defendant £l6, He did not notice at the time that the stamp was not cancelled, but he afterwards noticed that it was hot so. Mr Harper did not deny the offence, but pleaded that under the Stamp Duties Amendment Act, 1872, in ’clauses 14 and 27, his Worship would find that no penalty attached to non-cancelling a stamp. A penalty would of course follow if no stamp were placed on a receipt. That Act re-enacted the whole process of stamping a receipt. His Worship felt that under the Act of 1866 (with which the subsequent Act must be read), defendant had made himself liable by not cancelling the stamp. At Mr Harper’s request his Worship allowed the case to stand over for further consideration. Embezzlement. —F. Pavitt was charged on remand with embezzling the sum of £l6lO 16s lid, the property of Christ’s College Corporation. The evidence of Canon Willock, fellow and bursar of Christ’s College, was taken, and the case was still proceeding when we went to press.