MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 526, 24 February 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, February 24, (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, E.M.) Drunkenness —The following cases were dealt with :—Ellen Talbot, an old offender, was fined 205,; David. Buchan, who was also charged with the wilful destruction of private property by breaking C. Burmeister’s windows, fined 10s, and to pay the damage 12s 6d. Illegally on Premises. —Wm, Smith was charged with being illegally on the premises of Mr R. H. Campbell, Addington, at 11 o’clock last night. His Worship discharged defendant with a caution. Horses and Cattle at Large.— The following cases were dealt with : —A. Agnew, fined ss; Herman Cook, ss; J. Garland, 5s ; Matthew Spencer (two cases), 10s; Thomas Wheeler, 5s ; Thomas Preston, 5s ; David Patrick, 5s ; and Thomas Plumridge, ss. Driving Without a License.— Walter Cook, a cabman, was charged with this offence. It appeared that on 10th February, defendant was driving in Madras street. He formerly held a license, but it was revoked by the City Council, and notice of such revocation served on Ist February. Fined 10s. Obstructing Footpath. —John Gough was fined 10s for obstructing the footpath, by allowing his horse and cart to remain thereon. Abusive and Threatening Language.— Jane McHaig was charged with using abusive and threatening language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, towards Mary Dixon. Mr O’Neil for defendant. This was a quarrel between neighbours, and after hearing the evidence the Bench fined defendant 10s and costs. Larceny. —Rose Clements, a little girl, was charged with stealing a quantity of w r earing apparel, the property of her master, Mr Candy, Worcester street. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner, who was in Mrs Candy’s service, took a bundle of clothing to Mr Hebden’s, in Gloucester street, and asked the servant there to take care of it. The servant told her mistress, and ultimately Mr Candy was communicated with. Some articles of clothing were also found at prisoner’s mother’s house. Prisoner said that the latter articles had been given to her. Mrs Candy identified the clothes, and stated she had not given the prisoner the clothing, but she did not wish to press the charge against the prisoner, who had been with her a month, and had been a very good girl. Inspector Buckley said that the girl’s parents were respectable. The girl’s father, who was in Court, said he was satisfied somebody was teaching his child to steal. Mr Mellish said that he would not enter a conviction against the girl, but he would send her to the Industrial School. The Father—“ I hope you will not do that, sir; if you do it you will break her mother’s heart.” His Worship said that he should order the girl to be sent to the Industrial School for twelve months, to be brought up in the religion of the Church of England. Application for Protection of Earnings.—Jane Kinlay applied for an order protecting her earnings from her husband, Joseph Kinlay, for the support of herself and children. It appeared that the husband was a drunkard, and squandered his own and his wife’s earnings. The Court made the order, and ordered further that the husband pay 10s per week for the support of his family. Slaughter-house Licenses. The adjourned application of John Brook for a slaughtering license at the Tai Tapu was called on. Mr Thomas in support of the application ; Mr Joynt to oppose. Applicant said the premises were formerly a flaxmill ; if he had a license granted, he would take every precaution against a nuisance, and to prevent the river from being polluted. A petition had been presented against witness having a boiling-down establishment, which in one instance had been signed by a wife without her husband’s consent, and in another a party had signed it not knowing what it was he was signing. The premises are large, and well adapted for t!ie purpose. On cross-examination, applicant said that where he proposed to kill was about two chains from the river. Witness proposed to kill sheep to boil down, and also to supply butchers. Would not allow the blood and refuse to flow into the river. Could say nothing about the air being polluted. There would be no drainage into the river from the level of the land. Sergt. Morris, examined by Mr Joynt, said that the flax-mill was about fifteen feet from the river; the mill stood on much higher ground than the river; even if the refuse were carried away, the drainage must flow into the river. By Mr Thomas —Mr Nutt had a license within 100 yards from the same place ; did not know that there was anything to prevent Mr Nutt from starting a boiling-down establishment. Mr Nutt was then called, and stated that he killed to supply himself and his neighbours. Did not see how slaughtering could he

carried on for a boiling-down establishment without causing a nuisance. The applicant stated, in reply to his Worship, that he was willing to slaughter further away if it should prove a nuisance. Mr Joynt said that the mill was situated between two roads, which were being constantly used, and moreover, the river flowed almost at the foot of it. Petitions against the granting of the license were put in. Mr Nutt said that when Mr Mein had a boiling-down establishment on the Lincoln road, although be took every precaution, it was a nuisance to the neighbourhood. Mr Joynt submitted that a license ought not to be granted in such a populous neighbourhood, and . where a nuisance must arise if a licence were granted, Mr Thomas said that the question for the Bench to decide was, whether they would grant a slaughtering license or not, they had nothing to do with a boiling-down establishment. Mr Joynt said that if the Bench approved, the application could stand over so that Mr Brook might select some other place, approved by tbe police, and farther off from the river. The case was ultimately adjourned for the police to look further into the matter.