MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 562, 6 April 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCH LTRCH. Thursday, April G. (Befere G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M.) Drunkenness and Indecency.— Peter Thompson was charged with these offences, and was fined 40s. Drunk and Disorderly. —James Standeven was fined 40s, and J ohn Ray 20s, for these offences. Illegally on Premises. —Robert Findall was charged with being drunk and illegally on the premises of Robert Beattie, of Durham street. The apprehending constable deposed that a bottle and box of matches were beside the prisoner, who was lying drunk in the hayloft. Prisoner said he had had permission to go upon the premises, but this was denied. Sentenced to 24 hours’ imprisonment. Stray Horses. —The following persons were fined for allowing horses to stray : Thomas Aldridge, 5s ; William Judge, ss; William Merrit, ss; Thomas Hazard, ss; T. B. Bush, 5s ; George Osborne, ss ; Wm Dunbar, 5s ; Geo Husband, ss. General Cases. —George Husband for furiously riding, was fined 20s ; and George Nott, for a similar offence, was mulct in the same penalty. Thomas Greig, contractor, was fined 10s for neglecting to keep a light burning on a hoarding at the corner of Colombo and Lichfield streets. John Webster was charged with obstruction on the Town belt with a vehicle. Mr Palmer, clerk to the Drainage Board, appeared, and stated that the defendant was in the employ of the Board, and could not then be present. He (the speaker) had seen his Worship the Mayor, who had wished that the case should not be proceeded with, as such obstructions must continue to take place on the belt during the progress of the works. The Bench observed that the Board must be allowed to get on with the work, and dismissed the case. Hugh Taylor, for obstruction on the East Town belt with a cow, Avas fined 10s. William Thompson, for obstruction, Avas fined 10s ; and Dennis McKenzie, for alloAving a coav to wander at large, ss. William Jordan, a hackney carriage driver, for not looking after his vehicle, avas fined 10s. Sam. Woods, for allowing cattle to Avandor, ss. Geo. Chisnall, for a similar offence, ss. Hans Clark, for plying for hire with a hackney carriage without a license. 10s ; and Thomas Williams, for not having proper command over his horses, was ordered to pay 10s. Assault. —Edward Avard was charged with assaulting Isaac Bridges. The complainant deposed that defendant had followed him out of Letchford’s Hotel, Addington, and struck him violently at first Avith his fist, and afterwards Avith a stone, knocking out two of his teeth. Defendant stated that he only committed the assault in selfdefence. When the complainant was in liquor he Avas quite insane, and was a most ferocious man. Complainant added that he had been knocked down, and had his teeth kicked out. The Bench remarked that there was something behind the scenes, and fined the defendant £3 and costs. Neighbours’ Quarrels. Margaret Stills, an elderly woman, and John Stiffs, her son about twelve years of age, were charged with assaulting Jffary Ann Sorton.

Mr O’Neil appeared for the complainant, who admitted that she h»d thrown water over the boy, upon which defendants had thrown pieces of dirt at her ; and defendant stated that complainant’s son had been in’ structed to fire at their neighbours with a “Shangai" and a bow and arrow. The Bench observed that it was a trumpery neighbours’ quarrel, and the case would be dismissed. Abusive Language— Jacob Rogers was charged with using abusive and insulting language towards Susan Dodd. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. The evidence and cross-examination of the complainant was very amusing, and caused a good deal of laughter, dogs, turkeys, lawyers, and woman’s tongues being considerably mixed up—especially the latter. Complainant called her granddaughter as a witness, and her evidence was corroborative so far as the abusive language was concerned. The defence was that complainant had set her dogs upon defendant’s turkeys, and used abusive language towards defendant himself. He denied distinctly that he had ever sworn at her. The Bench dismissed the case, the complainant remarking “ that she did’nt want to do him no harm but only to speak the truth,” Maintenance Orders. —John Lamb was called upon to contribute to his son’s support in the naval training ship, at Auckland ; he was ordered to pay 7s 6d per week. Charles James, who did not appear, and who was summoned for similar neglect, was ordered to pay 5s per week. Henry Ball, who was summoned under the same Act, said he could not pay anything towards his son’s support. It was as much as he could do to keep what he had. He had 7s a day when be was in work, but that was not constant. Ordered to pay 5s per month. Assaulting a Bailiff. —Robert Gardner was charged with assaulting John J. Turnbull, bailiff to the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Mr Thomas appeared for Mr Gardner, and witnesses were ordered out of Court. Complainant asked for a remand, on the ground that he could not then get his witnesses. Mr Thomas objected to the remand, at least until Mr Turnbull was examined. The complainant then deposed that he went to the defendant’s house to serve a summons npon him. A woman came to the door, and said that Armstrong was not in. Witness heard someone coughing, and said, “ Why, I hear a man now.” The prisoner immediately rushed out, and struck witness, and knocked him down twice, saying at the same time “ If you do not get out I will kick you out.” The people had subsequently cleared out of the room. Crossexamined—Armstrong was not at all like the defendant. I may have had two glasses that evening, perhaps a little more, but I was quite sober. 1 know the defendant perfectly well. I will swear it was he who struck me, no matter if witnesses swear that he was elsewhere. I afterwards found that I had been mistaken with regard to the woman. I don’t know who it was. I know the defendant does not live at that house, James Campbell deposed that complainant was “ all right” on the night in question. Mr Pierce, the Inspector of Nuisances, also deposed that complainant was sober. For the defence the following witnesses were called. John Bodley, a barman at the Garrick Hotel, knew Armstrong—they were very much alike—so much so that a stranger could hardly tell one from the other. On the following morning Mrs Armstrong told witness that they were in a fine mess, as her husband had the night before knocked the bailiff down and afterwards made his escape. George Osborne deposed to being in defendant’s company on Monday night, from eight o’clock until twelve, with the exception of ten minutes, when he was away with Mr Myers. They were in Mr Myers’s house during the time in question. The plaintiff had oomoititotLe passage and made some enquiries. Complainant here interjected that he was not in the house on the night in question. Witness —Why you don’t know what you are talking about ; you were there for half an hour, Mr Myers gave corroborative evidence, and stated distinctly that complainant was in his house on Monday night. The defendant was then called. He stated that he did not know a man named Armstrong, and that he was not in Peterborough street on the evening in question, He swore distinctly that plaintiff was in Myers’ house that night. Plaintiff again stated that he was not. Defendant—Well, you would swear a man’s life away. Half a dozen witnesses will prove it, Detective Neil among the number. Mr Thomas —Well, I don’t know whether it was because the beer was particularly strong or not, but this I do know, that Turnbull has sworn very recklessly. The head bailiff applied for an adjournment, Mr Thomas urged that the case should be immediately dismissed, as it was a case of mistaken identity. If the plaintiff persisted in his statement on oath, he would apply for a warrant for perjury against him. It was a most monstrous thing, and if the case was adjourned, the matter would certainly be gone on further with. The Bench was of opinion that it was a case of mistaken identity, but still it would be better that the whole matter should be satisfactorily set at rest. Mr Thomas—l contend that the evidence I have produced basset it at rest very satisfactorily. The Bench—l shall grant the adjournment for a week. Mr Thomas—Very well, your Worship. It will be necessary for the defendant to bring his witnesses with him again. The Bench—l don’t see any occasion for that. Mr Thomas—l shall have Mr Turnbull, if he persists in this, put into the box again, and shall then most certainly take proceedings against him for perjury. In the meantime I must ask the Court to allow those witnesses in Court to be paid their expenses. The Bench —No, I cannot make that order now. Mr Thomas— It really seems to me to be unjust The Bench (sharply)—l will not allow such language to be used to the Court. Mr Thomas—Tour Worship, the word slipped out, and I apologise. The Bench—Oh, yes, it’s all very good to apologise after making such remarks. Mr Thomas—lt sometimes happens that a man in the warmth of debate and‘on behalf of his client makes use of a word which he afterwards regrets, as I have done; but when he apologises it is accepted, and there is an end of the matter. It is a word let slip by mistake in the warmth of speech, and is done in an instant; and it sometimes happens that courts of justice make a mistake occasionally. The matter then dropped. Mr Thomas—l suppose your Worship will allow expenses to witnesses after the next hearing. The Bench—l am sure I cannot answer that question. Mr Thomas (to defendant) —Mind you subpoena half a dozen people—every person who was in the house. The case was then adjourned for a week.