MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 394, 16 September 1875, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, September 16. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M.) Indecent Conduct. —James Dooley and Daisy Cornfoot were charged with indecent conduct in the park. Constable Neill proved the offence. The accused were each tined £5; in default, one month’s imprisonment with hard labour.

Drunk and Disorderly. Catherine Boyle, an old offender, was fined 40s, and strongly cautioned not to appear in Court again. John Wright, charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in Lichfield street, was fined ss.

Drunk and Resisting the Police.— James Duncan, arrested for being drunk at the Theatre and resisting the police, was fined 20s and cab-hire. Wm. Jenkins, fora similar off ence, but who bad not been previously before the Court, was fined 10s. Drunk and Soliciting Prostitution.— Mary Ann Kirkwood, an old offender, charged with the above offence, was senten! eel to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, Using Obscene Language. George Poskington, arrested for using obscene language the previous night in Tuam street, was fined 10s.

Wife Desertion.— Joseph Lloyd was charged with deserting his wife and leaving her without any means of support. Mr Duncan appeared for the complainant. From the evidence it appeared that these parties had been separated for some years, defendant allowing his wife 12s per week. On last December that amount was £ll in arrears, and the complainant had only, according to her evidence, received lls since December. Mr Duncan, who knew all the circumstances of the case and the family affairs of complainant and defendant, explained the particulars to his Worship, adding that for some time complainant had not been quite right in her mind, and should not be permitted to be a waif on the streets. MrJoynt suggested, as amicus curce, that as the parties had mutually separated, defendant could not be summoned under the Relief of Destitute Persons Ordinance, but, of course, a civil action could lie against him. Mr Duncan cited the Ordinance, contending that the desertion consisted in this case of defendant having failed to carry out the conditions of the separation by allowing the promised payment to fall into arrears. Defendant, in reply to the Bench, said they had nine children, and the youngest was between eighteen and nineteen. Mr Duncan remarked that some of the members of the family had in a measure supported complainant for some time past, but they now found themselves unable to do so any longer without defendant contributed. His Worship suggested that some arrangement should be come to between the parties, and at the request of Mr Duncan, allowed the case to stand over until he had conferred with the other members of the family. Horses and Cattle at Large.— For permitting horses and cattle to wander in the streets, James Kearney was fined 5s ; and Timothy Shea and J, W. Roundtree in a similar amount, Driving Without Sufficient Reins.— Thos. Mayer and R. Thompson for this offence were each fined 10s. Riding on Footpath. —Frederick Moore and Benjamin Hitchin were each fined 10s. Chimney on Fire. —Mary Brade, summoned for allowing the chimney of her house in High street to catch on fire, was fined 10s. Absent from Vehicles. —Frank R. Hart and George Green, charged with being absent from their horse and vehicle, were each fined 10s. Breach of Hackney Carriage Byelaws. —Robert Falloou was summoned for carrying three passengers in his cab contrary to the bye-law. Inspector Buckley said this was a complaint made by one cabman against another, and now the cabman who had laid the complaint did not appear. Charge dismissed. Breach of Publichouse Ordinance.— Robert Little was summoned for keeping his licensed house, the Ellcsme' e Hotel, open on the Bth August during prohibited hours, and selling drink during the same. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. William Bruns, called, stated he was a farmer living at Tai Tapu, about three miles from defendant’s home, Mr Thomas submitted that would settle the matter, as a person residing three miles from an hotel on a line of road might be served with refreshment under the Ordinance, Inspector Buckley said that when Bruns laid the information he said positively he only lived two miles from Little’s place. Mr Thomas said there had been a civil action between the parties about a horse, which complainant had lost, and he had threatened he would make it hot for the defendant. The glass of wine received by complainant had been given him when he had gone down to exchange the horses. He would ask that his fee and the expense of a witness he had called to prove the distance be allowed. His Worship dismissed the charge, but said he could not see his way to allow the fee or witness’s expenses,

Illegal Rescue of Cattle, &o—J, A. Graham and James Glennie were summoned for having illegally rescued cattle on the Bth instant from Phillip Ball. A second information was laid against defendants for using abusive and threatening language towards same complainant. A cross-summons was also laid by Graham against Ball for using abusive language to him. Mr Thomas appeared for the complainant, and Mr Joynt for defendants. On the application of Air Joynt, his Worship consented to take tho three \ cases together. The parties are neighbours, and live at Sumner, and have been before tho Court several times. On the last occasion Ball was bound over to keep the peace for six months, and according to his evidence defendants have since then tried on several occasions to provoke him to a breach of the peace. Gn the Bth of September complainant was driving his horses to the stable, when one broke back and run on to Graham’s land. Complainant’s boy went after it, and Glennie came first on horseback, and Graham subsequently tried to prevent him driving it off, and they then started to drive it with others to the pound. Complainant then sent the boy over the hill to drive some of defendant’s cattle off his (complainant’s) land to the pound he having promised he would go up and assist him. The alleged rescue then took place, defendants coming up, using the language complained of, and assuming a threatening attitude, thus detaining him while the cattle escaped from the lad on to Graham’s land. From the cross-examination of complainant’s son, it was stated that he (the lad) had, with his sister, stayed near their father while the abusive language was being used, principally by Glennie. It was. while they were in this position the cattle strayed on to Graham’s laud. His Worship said he thought the charge of illegal rescue could not be sustained. Further evidence showed that the alleged rescue was made on the Bth August, and the threatening language the day afterwards. Graham in his evidence stated that it was Ball who had used the threatening language, and said that if Glennie or he crossed the hill, he would give him a good thrashing. He (Ball) had a whip in his hand at the time. He (witness) was afraid to let Glennie take the horses to the pound himself as he saw Ball planting in the flax. Glennie called, corroborated the evidence given by Graham, but said that Ball had not addressed himself to Graham on the 9th. Mr Bali’s son re-called, said his father had never threatened Glennie, though the latter shook his fist at his father. After counsel had addressed the Bench, his Worship said he found it impossible to disbelieve the boy’s evidence, as it had been given in a very straightforward manner. There had been some very contradictory evidence in the case, and some of the parties had sworn to what were not facts. This, however, he did not believe of the boy, and he distinctly swore that Glennie had used the language complained of, and had refused to give up the horse when civilly asked by the lad, thus showing a desire of defendant to keep up the feud. The case of illegal rescue would be dismissed, as also the information against Graham for threatening language. Glennie knew Bull had been bound over, and should have been all the more careful to prevent a misunderstanding, and on that account he would certainly inflict on him a heavier fine. Glennie would be fined £3 and costs. The information against Ball would be dismissed. In reply to Mr Joynt, his Worship said he could not believe what either Graham or Glennie had said on the latter inf munition. Graham’s action of impounding Ball’s cattle frequently since January last, and hia having refused to give up a horse civilly asked for by the lad which he had seized for the purpose of impounding, showed he did not desire to live on terms of friendship with Ball. It had been proved that Ball had impounded Graham’s cattle but once, but that Graham had impounded Ball’s cattle frequently. Mr Joynt said that the latter circumstance was probably owing to the fact that Graham’s cattle rarely trespassed on Ball’s land, whereas Ball’s horses were almost always on Graham’s. He would wish, however, to be satisfied whether he was to gather from the observations that hud fallen from the Bench as to the impounding, whether his Worship thought that a man, by exercising his legal right of impounding trespassing cattle, evinced a desire to live on terms of animosity with his neighbours 1 He understood the right of impounding was intended by the Legislature as a speedy and inexpensive remedy, so that litigation might be avoided. His Worship said that was quite true, but the law was often made use of as an engine to give irritation and annoyance.

Keeping a House op 111-Fame. John Hall was charged with being the occupier of a house of ill-fame below the Kailway gates off Colombo road south. Sergeant Wilson deposed to visiting defendant’s house on the Srdinst. There were several persons of illfame in the house who had many times been convicted before that Court. Hall was in the house at the time, and had done no work since he had been living in that house. On another occasion, early in the morning, he (witness) visited the place and saw and heard bad characters, who were making a great deal of noise to the annoyance of the neighbours, who had complained strongly of it. Heports had reached the police of money and a watch having been stolen in the house. The evidence of some neighbors was taken, which confirmed the character of the defendant’s house, and of those who visited it. The improper conduct of these persons was often witnessed by children returning from Colombo road school. His Worship told defendant ho was a perfect nuisance to the neighborhood, evidently too lazy to work, but„this he would have to do. Sentenced to one mouth’s imprisonment with hard kbour. Breach op Domain Laws.—B. F. Fearon, summoned for allowing his dog to stray into the park, was fined 10s.